Latest Cases

Landlord and tenant – Recovery of possession. Sheriff Court: In an action in which landlords sought an order for recovery of possession of heritable property following the tenant's conviction for production of cannabis in the subjects, the court held that the defender had acted in an anti-social manner in relation to persons residing in, visiting, or otherwise engaged in lawful activity in the locality, but concluded that in the particular circumstances of the case it was not reasonable to make an order for recovery of possession of the subjects 

Employment – Discrimination. Trinidad and Tobago had two classes of police officer, regular police officers (RPOs) and special reserve police officers (SRPs). The issue was whether, by virtue of section 4(d) of the Constitution of Trinidad and Tobago, the claimant present and former SRPs were entitled to equal treatment with RPOs. The Privy Council, in dismissing the claimants' appeal, held, inter alia, that the nub of the matter was whether the claimants and their comparators had been doing the same work or work which was not materially different. The courts below had found, as a fact, that the SRPs had performed duties of significantly lesser responsibilities than had the RPOs. There was no sufficient reason for departing from the normal practice, which was not to go behind the concurrent findings of fact in the courts below. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant local planning authority's grant of planning permission for a major mixed use development. The Planning Court, in dismissing the application, held that the authority's officer had had power to grant permission once the matter had been considered by the board, without an express delegation of that power and without the outcome of negotiations concerning an agreement under s 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 having been reported back to its board. 

Immigration – Expulsion. Court of Session: Refusing a reclaiming motion by a petitioner who had challenged a decision to certify his claim that removal to Afghanistan would violate his right to respect for his private and family life as 'clearly unfounded', the court agreed with the Lord Ordinary that the fundamental flaw in the petitioner's submission was that he had sought to introduce the factual position in respect of the immigration decision—the disputed facts over the breach of the conditions of his student visa—into the assessment of the determination of the human rights claim. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant applied to quash the decision of the inspector appointed by the first defendant Secretary of State to grant planning permission for the erection of a free-standing wind turbine and associated development. The Planning Court, in allowing the application, held that, although the inspector had considered the harm to the listed buildings affected in accordance with para 134 of the National Planning Policy Framework, that, of itself, was insufficient to demonstrate that he had attached considerable weight to such harm. 

Dentist – Professional misconduct. The appellant dentist challenged the Professional Conduct Committee (the PCC) of the respondent General Dental Council's order that she be erased from the register of dentists. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the PCC had had ample evidence to conclude that the appellant's attitude to criticism and defects in her practice had shown that she had had little insight into her problems. Accordingly, it had been entitled to conclude that it could not be confident that the public would be protected by an approach less than erasure. 

Freedom of information – Exempt information – Procedural fairness. Court of Session: Refusing an appeal by a prisoner against a decision of the respondent concerning requests for information he made to the Scottish Prison Service under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002, the court held that the respondent was entitled to conclude that the information was reasonably obtainable other than by means of a 2002 Act request, and that no breach of natural justice or the principles of fairness had occurred. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against orders for his extradition to France to serve a sentence of seven years' imprisonment for participation in a criminal organisation, and facilitation of unauthorised entry and residence. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the judge had been entitled to conclude that the appellant's extradition would not be oppressive on the basis that there was a high risk that he would commit serious acts of self-harm, including suicide. Further, the appellant's extradition would not amount to a disproportionate interference in his or his family's rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Sentence – Imprisonment. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that a suspended sentenced imposed for the offence of attempted robbery had been unduly lenient and substituted it for one of five and-a-half years' detention in a young offender institution. The court held that the recorder had given too much weight to the offender's circumstances and the fact that it was his first offence and an offence which had been well out of character. 

European Union – Regulations. The Court of Justice of the European Union dismissed the appeal by Mr Ahmed Abdelaziz Ezz and others (the applicants) against the judgment of the General Court of the European Union, by which the General Court had dismissed their action for annulment, first, of Council Decision 2011/172/CFSP (concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt) and, secondly, of Council Regulation (EU) No 270/2011 (concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt), in so far as those acts concerned the applicants.