Latest Cases

Solicitor – Negligence. The claimant retained the defendant solicitors' firm in relation to a property transaction. Matters did not go well for the claimant and he brought a claim in negligence against the defendant alleging breach of duty of care. The defendant denied the allegation. The Queen's Bench found that the claimant had failed to prove any breach of duty on the part of the defendant in relation to any of the grounds alleged against it and so the claim failed in its entirety. 

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. 

Registered land – Rectification of Land Register – Standard security – Disposition by creditor on sale. Court of Session: In an action in which the pursuer sought rectification of the Land Register in relation to a property he had purchased from a bank, the bank having obtained a warrant from the court to sell the property under the power of sale in its standard security, without serving a calling-up notice, and the first defender, on the pursuer applying to register the disposition, having deleted the bank's standard security from the charges section of the title sheet but retained entries for the second and third defenders' securities, the court held that on the disposition being duly recorded in the register the property was disburdened of the bank's standard security and of the second and third defenders' securities and the retention of the entries for the latter was an inaccuracy in the register requiring rectification. 

Immigration – Asylum – Fresh claim. Court of Session: Dismissing a judicial review petition by a failed Nigerian asylum seeker, challenging a decision refusing to accept that he had made a fresh claim, the court held that the petitioner's further submissions did not introduce material which was significantly different from that which had been previously considered. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

Sentence – Mandatory life sentence. The applicant serving life prisoner complained that his whole life order violated art 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The European Court of Human Rights held that there had been no violation of art 3 of the Convention. The power to release, under s 30 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997, exercised in the manner delineated by the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in particular, in Attorney General's Reference (No 69 of 2013), R v McLoughlin; R v Newell ([2014] 3 All ER 73), was sufficient to comply with the requirements of art 3 of the Convention. 

Adult incapacity – Power of Attorney – Validity. Court of Session: In a special case which was presented to the court to determine whether a particular power of attorney, in similar form to many other powers of attorney, was valid as a continuing power of attorney for the purposes of s 15 of the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000, the court held that the special case was competent, that the power of attorney was a valid continuing power of attorney for the purposes of s 15 of the 2000 Act, and it resolved the conflict of authority which had created doubt about the legal position. 

Criminal law – Detention in custody. The claimant sought judicial review of the decision to extend his custody time limit. The Divisional Court held that, although no judicial consideration had been given to whether there had been 'good and sufficient cause' for extending the custody time limit, the decision of the first judge to fix a trial date beyond the expiry of the custody time limit had not been amenable to judicial review by virtue of s 29(3) of the Senior Courts Act 1981. Further, the discrete decision of the second judge to extend the time limit contained no discernible error.