Latest Cases

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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.