Latest Cases

Mental health – Court of Protection. An issue arose regarding contact between an elderly man with dementia and a friend of his (M). Contact was opposed by the man's son and attorneys and advised against by his consultant. The local authority had conducted a best interests procedure which had determined that contact should not take place, but M wanted to maintain the relationship. Efforts at resolving the dispute failed, so the authority sought the permission of the Court of Protection to apply for determination of the dispute. The application was opposed by the son and attorneys. The court granted permission, as the factors in s 50 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 had been met. 

Sentence – Confiscation order. The claimant accountants were convicted of fraud in relation to their operation of Ponzi schemes. Confiscation orders had been made against them. The claimants applied for certificates of inadequacy, pursuant to s 83 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the applications, held that there was no merit in either application. On the evidence, the first claimant had hidden assets of at least £382,691.36 and the second claimant had hidden assets of at least £2,046,910.58. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The claimant brought a claim for damages for breach of contract against the defendant. The defendant applied on the day of the trial to strike out the claimant's statement of case and for summary judgment. The Queen's Bench Division held that despite the applications being made on the day of the trial, the only proper step was to strike out the claimant's statement of case and grant summary judgment. 

Medical practitioner – Professional conduct committee. The claimant medical practitioner sought judicial review of the Fitness to Practise Panel (the FPP) of the defendant General Medical Council's decisions to admit in evidence the judgments of six cases in which she had given expert evidence and that the allegations against her were adequately particularised. The Administrative Court held that it was not unfair for the judgments to be admitted, the balance struck by the FPP between the probative value of the judgments and any prejudicial effect was reasonable, and the admission of the judgments would not reverse the burden of proof. However, in certain respects, the particulars had been inadequate. 

European Union – Regulations. The claimant sought interim declarations and a prohibition order, effectively seeking to compel the defendant Secretary of State to veto the claimants' re-listing as persons subject to sanctions arising out of the European Union's concerns relating to nuclear proliferation in Iran. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the General Court of the European Union was a proper and apt alternative remedy. Further, giving due weight to the political context to the dispute, nothing in the facts of the case came even close to justifying the exercise of the discretion to grant interim relief. 

Personal Injury: Quantum Case. Clinical negligence. The Claimant received £13,500 by way of a Part 36 offer, which the Defendant accepted without admitting liability. The Claimant had been admitted to the ICU and was unconscious for a long period of her stay. She developed a large pressure sore on the back of her head which tested positive for MRSA and e-coli, and eventually resulted in a permanent bald patch. 

Civil procedure – Jurisdiction – Domicile of individuals. Court of Session: Dismissing an action in which a company in liquidation sought to recover from its sole director and shareholder payments to him which were averred to have been gratuitous alienations, and he averred that he was neither resident nor domiciled in Scotland and that the court did not have jurisdiction, the court held that the defender was not resident in Scotland when the action was raised and the pursuer had failed to prove that he was domiciled in Scotland. 

Pension – Pension scheme. In an earlier judgment, the claimant, IBM, was held to have breached its duty of good faith in respect of changes whereby it closed the defined benefit section of its final salary pension plan to future accrual for most employees, and it was held to be in breach of its contractual duty of trust and confidence concerning non-pensionable agreements, purportedly entered into by members in 2009, the Chancery Division made various rulings following the remedies hearing. Among other things, the court held that certain non-pensionable agreements were unenforceable and that early retirement members of the relevant pension schemes were, in principle, entitled to damages or equitable compensation from IBM as a result of the application of a new early retirement policy. 

Practice – Summary judgment. The claimant, Stemcor, sought summary judgment against the defendants in respect of sums allegedly due pursuant to two guarantees provided by them in relation to the liabilities to Stemcor of another company, GIKIL. The defendants cross-applied for a stay of proceedings pending the outcome of an arbitration between Stemcor and GIKIL. The Commercial Court held that, on the facts, Stemcor's application for summary judgment would be refused and the defendants' application for a stay would be granted. In circumstances where the proceedings were being stayed pending the determination of the arbitration with GIKIL, there could be no useful purpose in requiring the joinder of GIKIL. 

Family proceedings – Practice. The local authority applied for a care order in relation to a young child, L. The authority sought findings that: (i) the physical abuse suffered by L had been caused by A, a man with whom the mother had been in a relationship; (ii) the mother had unreasonably failed to protect L from being assaulted by A; and (iii) L had been sexually abused. On the evidence, the Family Court made the findings sought.