Latest Cases

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. 

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 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

European Union – Rules on competition. The European Commission had adopted a decision to the effect that Eni SpA and Versalis SpA had infringed EU competition law, thereby imposing a fine on them. The General Court of the European Union had confirmed the legality of the Commission's decision, save that it had reduced the fine imposed. Both parties appealed, the Commission requesting that the Court of Justice of the European Union (the Court) should set aside that judgment in so far as it had reduced the amount of the fine. Eni and Versalis contended that the Court should set aside the judgment under appeal in so far as it had dismissed their joint action at first instance. The Court dismissed both appeals. 

Damages – Personal injury. Whilst working for the defendant employer British Telecom, the claimant was injured. He brought an action for damages against the defendant alleging, inter alia, breach of Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 SI2306/98 and regulation 4(3) of the Electricity at Work Regulations 1989, SI 635/1989. The Queen's Bench Division held that the breach had been made out and that the claimant was entitled to damages to be assessed, subject to a reduction of one third in respect of contributory negligence. 

Prison – Life sentence. The claimant prisoner sought judicial review of the decision to classify him as high escape risk. The Divisional Court, in allowing the application in part, held that, although information relating to the work the claimant had done in prison and the reports in his favour had been omitted from consideration in the initial decision, a subsequent review had been entitled to conclude that the additional information would not materially have affected the decision. Further, the reasons had been adequate and there had been no conflation of the tests for determining security classification and escape risk classification.