Latest Cases

Divorce – Financial proceedings. During the course of divorce proceedings, preliminary issues arose for determination concerning assets which might, or might not, have been within the bankrupt husband's estate. The Family Division held that the family home was held by the wife on trust for the husband subject to a 25% beneficial interest in favour of the husband's adult son from a previous marriage. Further, sums asserted by the son to be due to him from the father's estate were, on the evidence, properly owed to the father and he had not relinquished his right to that money. 

Sentence – Imprisonment. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that concurrent sentences of seven months' imprisonment for drugs offences committed whilst in prison had been unduly lenient, and ordered that each sentence should run consecutively to existing sentences being served. 

Bank – Contract. The parties made a contract, whereby the claimants, Decura, would exclusively supply the defendant company, UBS with financial products and services. A dispute arose out of Decura's asserted right to terminate pursuant to cl 20 of the contract. The Commercial Court, in finding for UBS, held that the word 'material' would be defined as 'substantial' or 'insignificant', and that, on the wording of the contract, there had been no cessation of a part of UBS' business that proved Decura's case. 

Criminal law – Cumulative or alternative charges. High Court of Justiciary: Refusing appeals against conviction by two appellants who were each convicted of a charge of behaving in a threatening or abusive manner and a charge of possessing a firearm with intent to cause fear of violence, the court rejected contentions that the convictions on both charges gave rise to double jeopardy, the same evidence being founded upon by the Crown on both charges, that convicting the appellants of both charges resulted in contradictory verdicts, and that the prosecutor should have libelled different charges. 

Title to land – Title to sue. Court of Session: Refusing an appeal from the sheriff principal in an action in which the pursuers sought to remove the defender from land, averring they were pro indiviso proprietors of the land and that he occupied it without right or title, and he denied that they owned the land but asserted no right or title himself, the court held that the pursuers, or one or other of them, had an ex facie valid title which was good enough to pursue an action against a defender who advanced no competing writ. 

Solemn procedure – Identification – Corroboration – Statements forming part of res gestae. High Court of Justiciary: Refusing an appeal by an appellant who was found guilty of charges of murder and attempted murder, and who contended that the trial judge had erred in holding that a statement made by his partner formed part of the res gestae when the statement was made not within sight of the incident nor within hearing, the court held that what the appellant's partner did and said were all part of the res gestae and could be used by the jury as proof of the identity of the murderer of the deceased. 

Medical practitioner – Professional misconduct. The claimant was a consultant in general and colorectal surgery employed by the defendant Trust. Concerns about his clinical practice began to emerge and the defendant notified the claimant that it considered that there was a prima facie case of gross misconduct by him and a disciplinary panel would be constituted. The defendant provided its management case twelve 12 working days before the disciplinary hearing was due to commence. The claimant sought an adjournment and when the panel refused the claimant sought an injunction preventing the defendant from continuing in the hearing. The Queen's Bench Division refused the injunction holding that there was no good reason to intervene in the discretion of the panel. 

Town and country planning – Enforcement notice. The appellant appealed against an order dismissing: (i) his application to quash the decision of the inspector, appointed by the first respondent Secretary of State, to dismiss his appeal against the second respondent local authority's refusal to grant planning permission for the redevelopment of a site; and (ii) his appeal against the inspector's decision to dismiss his appeal against an enforcement notice issued by the authority in respect of the site and to uphold the notice with variations. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held, inter alia, that two different versions of a plan had been produced by the appellant and by the authority before the inspector. Extrinsic evidence had plainly been admissible to resolve the factual issue as to which of the two plans had been referred to in the planning permission. As to the enforcement notice, there had been a legally defective variation notice which the authority had had the power to and had withdrawn and corrected before the appeal had been decided by the judge. 

Criminal evidence – Admissibility of evidence. High Court of Justiciary: Refusing an appeal by an appellant against her conviction for possession of a controlled drug on the basis that her detention by police officers was unlawful, and thus evidence of her possession of heroin should not have been allowed, the court held that the officers had reasonable grounds for suspecting that the appellant was involved in a drugs offence: a reasonable person in possession of all the information available to the detaining officers would have suspected criminal behaviour. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The claimant bank brought a claim against its former employee, the fourth defendant, for breaching his equitable and contractual duties to the bank by granting unauthorised banking facilities to the first defendant company which later went into administration. The employee, in his defence, contended that a demand by the bank calling in the debt had ratified his letter granting the loan facility and had waived the bank's rights against him. The Chancery Division, in granting the bank summary judgment, held that the bank had been entitled to recover its money by issuing a demand and it had not waived its debt in so doing. Accordingly, there was no reasonable prospect of the defence succeeding.