Latest Cases

Family law – Marriage – Forced Marriage. Sheriff Court: Dismissing an application by a local authority for a Forced Marriage Protection Order in respect of a 15-year-old girl, the court held that the girl had not been forced into a marriage, nor had any attempt to force her into a marriage been made, she did not want an order to be made, and one was not required in order to secure her health, safety and wellbeing. 

Highway – Definitive map. The claimant issued proceedings, seeking the quashing of an order made under s 53 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, modifying the definitive map of public rights of way by adding a new footpath, as confirmed by the inspector appointed by the first defendant Secretary of State. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that, properly construed, the inspector's decision had been rational and she had given adequate reasons for her conclusions. 

Medical negligence – Occlusion of artery/ischemia – Liability – Causation. Court of Session: In a medical negligence action by a pursuer who developed ischemia in her left arm, which was caused by occlusion in the brachial artery, which was caused by a cannulation carried out by a radiographer (the first third party) during an MRI scan, the court concluded that the first third party was in breach of her duty of care to the pursuer and that the breach caused her injury, that the defenders, as the first third party's employers, were vicariously liable for her breach of duty, but were entitled to look to her for indemnification, and that she was not entitled to a contribution from the second third parties, Forth Valley Health Board, who had contracted the defenders to carry out MRI scanning at their hospital. 

Libel and slander – Preliminary point of law. In the course of the claimant's defamation proceedings against them, the defendants sought the trial of preliminary issues as to serious harm, identification, meaning and abuse of process. The Queen's Bench Division, in allowing the applications, held that it was appropriate to determine serious harm as a preliminary issue, as it was a threshold condition in any action brought pursuant to the provisions of the Defamation Act 2013. Common sense and the overriding objective required early determination of serious harm, reference, abuse of process and meaning to enable a determination to be made as to whether the claims should continue. 

Immigration – Education. The claimant college sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision to revoke its Tier 4 sponsor licence. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the claim, held that it was a significant gauge of the claimant's ability or willingness to monitor its students that 116 had obtained a language certificate by cheating and had not, during the course of their studies, been discovered by the claimant to have had inadequate English language skills. Additionally, the claimant had failed to determine whether students' study would amount to academic progression. 

Local government – Council tax. The appellant listing officer appealed against the Valuation Tribunal for England's determinations of the appropriate valuation band, for the purposes of council tax, for the respondents' flats. The Administrative Court, in allowing the appeals, held that reg 6 of the Council Tax (Situation and Valuation of Dwellings) Regulations 1992, SI 1992/550 provided that a flat was assumed to be let on a conventional long lease at nominal rent and not on a shared ownership lease. Accordingly, the tribunal had erred in assessing the value of the flats on the basis that they would be subject to shared ownership leases. 

Misrepresentation – Exclusion of liability for misrepresentation. The claimant sought damages for the defendant's misrepresentations, under s 2(1) of the Misrepresentation Act 1967. The Commercial Court, in allowing the claim, held that the fact that consideration for subordinated notes had been paid by the claimant to a third party, not the defendant, had not taken the case outside s 2(1) of the Act and, in principle, the defendant could rely on a defence of contributory negligence. In the circumstances, one false misrepresentation had been made by the defendant and relied upon by the claimant, but the submissions on contributory negligence were rejected. 

Human rights – Right to fair trial. The applicant, with an IQ of 62 and a six-year-old's understanding of spoken English, alleged violations of art 6(1) of the European Convention of Human Rights in his murder trial. The European Court of Human Rights, in dismissing the application, held that there had been no violation of art 6(1) of the Convention by the judge's ruling that it had been desirable for the applicant to have given evidence or his failure to direct the jury to consider whether the prosecution case was so strong that it had called for an answer before inviting it to draw an adverse inference from the applicant's failure to testify. 

Sentence – Custodial sentence. The applicant former prisoner complained of violation of art 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights by the United Kingdom's delay in allowing him access to rehabilitative courses and repeated deferral of his Parole Board review hearing. The European Court of Human Rights held that there had been no violation of art 5(1) of the Convention, as a real opportunity for rehabilitation had been provided. However, there had been a violation of art 5(4) of the Convention due to a 13-month delay in conducting the review hearing, for which the applicant was awarded €750. 

Negligence – Duty to take care. The claimant issued proceedings against the defendant employer for damages for psychiatric illness and consequential loss caused by work-related stress. The Queen's Bench Division, in dismissing the claim, held that the claim had to fail as to the claimant's first breakdown, as the foreseeability threshold could not begin to be surmounted on any view of the evidence. Further, there had been no breach of duty in respect of the claimant's first attempted return to work and, had a general risk assessment been conducted, no general risk of psychiatric injury would have been uncovered.