Latest Cases

Jury – Direction to jury. The police had discovered the defendant in his property, which was being used for the cultivation of cannabis. It was the defendant's case at trial that the property was being let and that others were responsible for the drugs. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in allowing the defendant's appeal against conviction, held that a direction regarding circumstantial evidence and the drawing of inferences had been needed and accordingly, the conviction was unsafe. 

European Union – Social security. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council (on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community), as amended. The request had been made in proceedings between Mr Kik and the Netherlands State Secretary for Finance concerning Mr Kik's insurance under the Netherlands social security scheme for a certain period. 

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal by the appellant association, which was concerned with the protection of the environment of the Shetland Islands, against the decision by the Inner House of the Court of Session to uphold the decision by the respondent Scottish Ministers to grant consent to developers for the construction and operation of a wind farm. The Court held, amongst other things, that, contrary to the decision of the Lord Ordinary, the duty of the respondents in considering such development proposals was not to conduct a full review of their functions under Directive (EC) 2009/147 (on the conservation of wild birds), but to take that directive into account as one of a number of material considerations in reaching a lawful decision whether to grant consent under the Electricity Act 1989. 

European Union – Customs and excise. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art 1(2) of Council Directive (EC) 2008/118 (concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive (EEC) 92/12). The request was submitted in the context of a dispute between the Tallinn Enterprise Office and Statoil Fuel & Retail Eesti AS, concerning the reimbursement of a sales tax paid by that company in 2010 and 2011. 

Sentence – Confiscation order. The defendant appealed against the judge's assessment of the value of the benefit from his conspiracy to supply class A and B drugs at £2,286,472.80 and the recoverable amount at £324,184.53. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division rejected his submission that there was no jurisdiction to make a confiscation order under that statute, as a forfeiture order had previously been made. However, it held that the judge had been wrong in his assessment of the value of the cocaine which had been unmatched by possession of an equivalent amount of diluting agent and the benefit figure fell to be reduced accordingly. 

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. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union had dismissed the action by MEGA Brands International, Luxembourg, Zweigniederlassung Zug (MEGA) for annulment of decisions of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) relating to opposition proceedings between MEGA and Diset SA, concerning MEGA's application to register a figurative sign 'MAGNEXT' as a Community trade mark. The Court of Justice of the European Union decided that the operative parts of that judgment should be set aside on the basis that parts of MEGA's appeal had been well founded. Consequently, the Court referred the case back to the General Court for completion of its assessment of the facts. 

Contract – Illegality. The claimant carried on business as business transfer agents. It was common ground that the activities of the claimant fell within the definition of the expression 'estate agency work' in s 1(1) of the Estate Agents Act 1979. The relevance of that was the reference to 'estate agents' in the Money Laundering Regulations 2007, SI 07/2157. The parties entered into an agreement and a dispute arose. The claimant brought a claim based on the agreement. The defendant contended that the agreement was not enforcible for illegality. Applying established law, the Queen's Bench Division held that the agreement was illegal and was consequently unenforceable. 

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.