Latest Cases

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The claimant lender claimed damages against the defendant valuers for negligently valuing a partly-built residential (the property). The defendant denied the claim and sought summery judgment. The Chancery Division allowed the application on the basis that the losses claimed by the claimant had been attributable to the existing indebtedness the monies advanced to the claimant and already outstanding at the time of the new loan facility and had not been caused by any negligence of the defendant in the November valuation. 

Limitation of actions – Prescription. Court of Session: In an action in which the pursuers sued for outstanding fees for management services provided in respect of the defender's flat, the court held that the short negative prescription applied to the sum sued for, that no relevant claim was made interrupting the 5‑year period until service of the initial writ on 15 April 2011, but that the defender was to be taken to have made a relevant acknowledgement by making payment of £14 on 27 November 2010. On that basis it was agreed that the sum due was £3,620 (liability to pay to the extent of £6,157 having prescribed). 

Solicitor – Contract. The claimant firm of solicitors brought a claim against the defendant for unpaid fees for work done on her behalf in matrimonial proceedings. The defendant counterclaimed, alleging, among other things, professional negligence by the claimant. The claimant sought summary judgment on its claim and a dismissal of the defendant's counterclaim. The Chancery Division granted summary judgment in favour of the claimant where the defendant's defences to the claims had no real prospect of success. The defendant's counterclaim was dismissed. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The claimants alleged that the defendant, B, had appropriated money whilst in public office in Djibouti. They obtained freezing injunctions, among other things, against him. In the course of obtaining the injunctions, a solicitor working for the claimants misled the court. B applied to have the injunctions dismissed. The Commercial Court held that, in the circumstances, the freezing injunctions would be dismissed, although a proprietary injunction would remain. 

Divorce – Financial provision. The proceedings concerned an application by the wife for financial remedy orders against the husband, in circumstances where the husband had brought into the relationship and marriage substantial wealth. The Family Division found that sharing the matrimonial property equally would be insufficient to meet the wife's needs. It then proceeded to consider the wife's needs and awarded her a lump sum of £5.6m which, in all the circumstances, was held to be fair to both parties. 

Pension – Pension scheme. The claimant had been employed in the civil service before an outsourcing agreement resulted in the transfer of her employment to a private sector contractor. She retained her pension with the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme. She was later told that, under the scheme's rules, because she had resigned from her role, she was only entitled to take her preserved pension when she reached the age of 60, and not 55 as had previously been the case. Her complaint to the Pensions Ombudsman was dismissed while her appeal to the Chancery Division was allowed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the Cabinet Office's appeal and held that, on the true construction of the scheme's rules, 'resignation' was to be given a wide meaning that included both voluntary and involuntary departure from the civil service, including the transfer of an undertaking to the private sector. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. Following care and placement proceedings, the President of the Family Division identified instances of poor practice within the proceedings on the part of the local authority and the appellant father's solicitors with a view to ensuring that, so far as possible, they did not recur. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant Mauritian national sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision, refusing her application to stay as a spouse. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that the Secretary of State had fallen into error in failing to comply with the requirement to say that exceptional circumstances had or had not been considered and had been rejected, even if she had considered that the case was so weak as not to be arguable. No finding would be made as to the inevitably of outcome and the Secretary of State's decision would be quashed. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimants sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision to grant of leave to remain for 30 months, but to impose a condition prohibiting them from having recourse to public funds (the condition). The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), in dismissing the application, held that the Secretary of State had not irrationally failed to grant discretionary leave to remain. Further, with respect to the condition, she had not unlawfully failed to consider the exercise of her discretion, failed to comply with s 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 or breached the claimants' rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Legal aid – Criminal cases. The claimants appealed against the Divisional Court's decision, dismissing their application for judicial review of the defendant Lord Chancellor's decision to introduce a tendering process for 527 contracts for solicitors to provide duty provider work (DPW). They contended that the Lord Chancellor had erred in failing to consider costs which would have to be incurred by providers in restructuring their affairs to put themselves in a position to bid for and implement the proposed contracts. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, for reasons which, in substance, reflected the judgment of the Divisional Court, dismissed the appeal.