Latest Cases

Disclosure – Disclosure of documents. The Chief Constable applied for an order that certain police records relating to the claimant should be withheld from disclosure in his judicial review proceedings on the grounds of public interest immunity. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that the public interest in protecting the identity of police informants and in the confidentiality of the vetting process which involved such information far outweighed the claimant's rights. Accordingly, there could be no question of disclosing information to the claimant which might reveal those identities. 

Criminal evidence and procedure – Judge's charge. High Court of Justiciary: In an appeal against a rape conviction on grounds which maintained that the trial judge misdirected the jury in respect of nine separate matters, the court refused the appeal except in relation to the 'repeated' element of the rapes libelled in the charge, holding that the absence of a correct direction on corroboration, and indeed the giving of a direction that no corroboration was needed for each rape, must be regarded as a material error of law. 

Criminal law – Breach of the peace. High Court of Justiciary: Refusing an appeal by stated case by an appellant who was convicted of breaching the peace by his conduct towards members of staff of a store selling lingerie and women's underwear, the court held that the sheriff had not erred in law in convicting the appellant of a breach of the peace as his conduct was of sufficient gravity to be genuinely alarming and disturbing to a reasonable person. 

Medical practitioner – Negligence. Following the birth of her third child, the claimant suffered a cardiac arrest and consequential neurological damage. An action was commenced on her behalf for the recovery of damages for personal injury, loss and damage from the defendant NHS Trust. In the circumstances, it was agreed that the single issue in relation to liability was whether the claimant could establish that the cause of her cardiac arrest had been a cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT). The Queen's Bench Division held that, on the balance of probabilities, the claimant had suffered a CVT, leading to her cardiac arrest and consequential neurological damage. Accordingly, she had succeeded in having established liability against the defendant. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The single issue in the present proceedings was whether the language of the form specified for making an application for leave to remain as a Tier 1 (Post-Study Work) Migrant gave rise to a legitimate expectation that, notwithstanding the requirement in the Immigration Rules that 15 points were given where the application was made within 12 months of obtaining the relevant qualification, namely, after obtaining the qualification, in certain circumstances, the points would be given where the application was made after the successful completion of the degree course, but before the degree was, in fact, awarded. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that, reading the language of the form in the context in which it was used, it did not generate such a legitimate expectation. 

Dentist – Professional misconduct. The appellant dentist appealed against the decision of the Professional Conduct Committee (the PCC) of the respondent General Dental Council (the GDC) that his fitness to practise as a dentist was impaired by misconduct and erasure was the appropriate sanction. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the PCC had not erred in making the decision in his absence and that it had adequately discharged its obligation to test the GDC's case. Further, no error of approach was discernible from the determination on sanction. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant local planning authority challenged the decision of the first defendant Secretary of State to grant the second defendant planning permission for a strategic rail freight interchange. The Planning Court, in dismissing the application, held that the Secretary of State and his inspector had not erred in imposing a legal test requiring a good or very good planning reason for disagreeing with an earlier decision, or improperly fettered their discretion. Further, matters in another decision of the Secretary of State had not been obviously material to the present case that he had been obliged to take them into account. 

Arbitration – Arbitrator. In the course of a construction dispute, it was decided to refer the matter to arbitration. The claimant company, Ecovision, sought to determine under which of several contractual provisions the arbitration had been appointed. J found for the defendant company, Vinci. The Technology and Construction Court, in allowing Ecovision's appeal, held that, among other things, J had lacked jurisdiction. 

Civil procedure – Personal injury – Expenses – Voluntary pre-action protocol. Sheriff Court: In a personal injury action in which the pursuer's solicitors sent a letter of claim to the defender's insurers proposing that the claim be negotiated in terms of the voluntary pre-action protocol, of which the insurers were signatories, and then raised the action without further warning after receiving no reply within 21 days, and the sheriff found no expenses were due to or by either party after the action settled, taking the view that a further warning letter was required, the court held that the sheriff's approach was erroneous; where it was accepted that adherence to the protocol reflected the normal and reasonable approach there was a risk of causing uncertainty and undermining confidence in the protocol if the court superimposed additional requirements such as that suggested by the sheriff. 

Agent – Secret commission. The appellants had taken out a loan arranged by the respondent credit broker. The respondent had received additional commission payments from the loan company and the payment protection insurer. The appellants had issued proceedings alleging that the respondent, in breach of its fiduciary duty owed to them, had received the additional commissions without having informed them either as to the fact of payment or as to the amount. The recorder dismissed the claim. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the appeal and held that there had been a fiduciary duty owed by the respondent to the appellants and that they had not given their informed consent to the additional commissions. Accordingly, the respondent was ordered to make an account of those payments to the appellants.