Latest Cases

Child – Care. An urgent application was made for a collection order regarding a vulnerable child. She was taken to a police station at 7.30pm, but was not collected until 3.02am. The Family Division stated that it was not acceptable for such an application to be granted by a judge and only then for inquiries to be made as to placement and transportation. It was incumbent on authorities to ensure that robust processes were in place. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Family Court allowed the claimant local authority's application for care and placement orders allowing a child, S, to be adopted. S's parents, particularly his father, had behaved violently. The court held that S would not be safe with his father, and that nothing would suffice other than the granting of the orders. 

Practice – Pre-trial relief. The claimant contended that the defendants had devised and executed a scheme to acquire, for their own benefit, shares and assets of two Russian companies to deprive it of the benefit of those assets as security for borrowing facilities and loans made to the original borrowers. The governing law of the torts alleged was that of Kazakhstan. The claimant was granted a freezing order in respect of the second defendant and an order for service outside of the jurisdiction. The Commercial Court discharged the freezing order and the order for service outside the jurisdiction where the claim had no realistic prospect of success because it was time-barred as a matter of Kazakh law and because of material non-disclosure. 

The pursuer had been seriously injured by a car when crossing the road. Her contributory negligence had been assessed at 90%. On appeal, her contributory negligence had been reduced to 70%. The Supreme Court held that the parties had been equally responsible for the damage suffered by the pursuer. Accordingly, the appeal would be allowed and 50% of the agreed damages would be awarded to the pursuer. 

Human rights – Infringement of human rights. The present case concerned the determination of preliminary issues in claims involving allegations of ill-treatment, unlawful detention and unlawful killing of Iraqi civilians by British soldiers. The Administrative Court ruled on the circumstances in which art 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights applied. It further held that an investigative duty arose where there was an arguable breach of art 3 of the Convention and where an arguable violation of art 5 of the Convention amounted to an enforced disappearance. An investigative obligation under arts 2 or 3 of the Convention could not arise in circumstances where there had been no arguable substantive breach of arts 2 or 3 of the Convention. 

Shipping – Charterparty. The claimant company, Spar, commenced arbitration proceedings against the defendant company, GCL, claiming the balance of hire due under certain charters and damages for loss of bargain in respect of the unexpired term of the charters. The Commercial Court held that, among other things, the charters had been validly signed. Although the payment of hire by GCL in accordance with the charters had not been a condition, Spar's common law right to damages for loss of bargain had been preserved, and Spar's claim succeeded. 

The appellant property developer appealed against a decision of the Second Division of the Inner House of the Court of Session that, on an objective assessment, the respondent Royal Bank of Scotland plc had not intended to enter into a legally binding promise to advance sums in the future to the appellant to purchase a development plot and to fund its development. The Supreme Court allowed the appellant's appeal, deciding that there had been a reasonable basis for the Lord Ordinary's finding that, on an objective analysis, the bank had made such a legally binding promise. Consequently, there was no adequate basis for overturning the Lord Ordinary's findings of fact. 

Damages – Personal injury. The claimant suffered a serious injury whilst working the in defendant's garden. He brought a claim against the defendant for damages for breach of a duty of care on the basis that the relationship between the parties was akin to that of employer/employee. The Queen's Bench Division held that the relationship was not as alleged by the claimant and therefore the claim would be dismissed. 

Social security – Income support. The claimant appealed against the judge's finding that the Jobseeker's Allowance (Mandatory Work Activity Scheme) Regulations 2011, SI 2011/688 were not ultra vires s 17A of the Jobseekers Act 1995. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that R (on the application of Reilly and another) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions ([2014] 1 All ER 505), which quashed similar regulations, was not binding, as the present scheme contained some elements by way of 'description'. Further, the Regulations prescribed a description of the scheme within the meaning of s 17A(1) of the Act. 

The claimant, who had diabetes, brought proceedings for negligence against the defendant health authority. She contended that, had she been told of the options available at the birth of her baby, she would have chosen a caesarian section, rather than to go ahead with a vaginal birth, which had resulted in injury to him. In allowing the claimant's appeal, the Supreme Court held that, among other things, the approach of the court in such cases, previously governed by the case of Sidaway v Board of Governors of the Bethlem Royal Hospital and the Maudsley Hospital ([1985] 1 All ER 643), was to be reconsidered. There could be no doubt that it had been incumbent on the claimants' obstetrician to advise her of the risks if she were to have her baby by vaginal delivery, and to discuss with her the alternative of delivery by caesarian section. In the circumstances, the claimant would probably have elected to be delivered of the baby by caesarian section.