Latest Cases

Mental health – Court of Protection. L was 93 and had severe dementia and Alzheimer's disease. Care and safety arrangements had been made for her by her daughters. The Court of Protection considered whether, among other things, the care arrangements for L amounted to a deprivation of her liberty. The court held that, on the evidence, there had been no deprivation of L's liberty. 

Civil procedure – Period of notice in summons. Court of Session: Granting a reclaiming motion in an action in which the pursuers' solicitors had prepared a summons specifying a period of notice of 42 days because the first defender resided in USA and they intended to serve the summons by post but service was not effected by post because the defenders instructed a Scottish firm of solicitors to accept service, and the pursuers subsequently attempted to lodge the summons for calling but on the previous day the defenders enrolled a motion contending that the instance had fallen because the summons had not called within a year and a day after the period of notice expired, the court, disagreeing with the Lord Ordinary, held that the period of notice was 42 days, not 21 days, and accordingly the instance had not fallen and the summons could call. 

Negligence – Duty of care. There was a preliminary issue before the court regarding whether or not the defendant Secretary of State owed a non-delegable duty of care to the claimant so as to render it liable to the claimant in respect of any negligence acts or omissions on the part of those providing medical care at an immigration retention centre. The Queen's Bench Division held that all the elements of non-delegable duty had been made out and further it was fair and reasonable to conclude that the defendant owed the claimant a non-delegable duty. 

Negligence – Duty to take care. JC was killed in a plane crash while on business in Africa. The claimants, who were his relatives, brought proceedings against the company that employed him, GMP, and a company with which GMP had been working, and which had chartered the plane, Sundance. The Queen's Bench Division held that GMP had been in breach of its duty to JC. However, if it had done what it should have done, JC would still have been on the flight that had crashed. Further, there had been no breach of duty on the part of Sundance. The claim was dismissed. 

Social security – Housing benefit. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant local authority's decision to include the care component of his disability living allowance (DLAc) in calculating his income for the purposes of assessing a discretionary house payment. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that the authority's policy of always taking into account DLAc as income when assessing awards of discretionary house payment was unlawful, as it failed to consider the Department of Work and Pensions' guidance. Further, it amounted to discrimination, contrary to art 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights and s 29(6) of the Equality Act 2010. 

Banking – Guarantee. The issue on an appeal from Mauritius was whether it was open to the claimant company to bring a claim in tort against the defendant bank on the basis that awareness on the bank's part of the state of account between the parties to an underlying sale and purchase contract, precluded the bank from claiming an indemnity in respect of advances concerning the price of goods, for which it had not been repaid. The Privy Council, dismissing the company's appeal, held that it was not. Where parties had entered into carefully structured contractual arrangements, involving two separate and autonomous contracts, it was impossible for the law to recognise tortious duties outside and cutting across the terms and performance of those contracts. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant, a crematoria operator with a pending application for planning permission for a crematorium, sought judicial review of the defendant local planning authority's decision to grant the interested party permission for a crematorium and associated development. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that the fact that the claimant's proposed site was an alternative, which had not required derogation from the duty to safeguard a protected species, had been a material consideration, which should have been brought to the authority's attention. It could not be found that the decision would have been the same even if the error had been corrected and the permission would be quashed. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant challenged the decision of the inspector appointed by the first defendant Secretary of State, dismissing its appeal against the second defendant local planning authority's refusal of planning permission. The Planning Court, in allowing the application, held that the inspector had materially erred in failing to grapple with the issue of whether the development had been in accordance with the development plan as a whole. Further, she had erred in taking the problems of implementing an emergency access into account as a factor in the balance against the proposal, as it could have been dealt with by way of conditions. 

Criminal Law – Procedure. The Lord Chief Justice handed down a Practice Direction, on 26 March 2015, applying to all proceedings for committal for contempt of court in all courts in England and Wales. The Practice Direction supersedes Practice Guidance: Committal for Contempt ([2013] 1 WLR 1316), dated 3 May 2013; Practice Guidance (Committal Proceedings: Open Court) (No. 2) ([2013] 1 WLR 1753), dated 4 June 2013; and President's Circular: Committals Family Court Practice 2024 at 2976, dated 2 August 2013. 

Landlord and tenant – Commercial lease – Tenant's repairing obligations. Court of Session: In a dispute as to the nature and extent of a tenant's repairing obligations under a lease of office premises, the lease having expired and the tenant having given up possession, the court held that on a proper construction of the lease the landlord was not entitled to payment of a sum equal to the cost of putting the premises into the relevant state of repair regardless of whether it actually intended to carry out any such work, and the tenant was not obliged to replace at expiry of the lease all items of plant and equipment on the premises at the date of entry, whatever their condition; the obligation was restricted to replacing such items as were missing, broken, worn, damaged or destroyed.