Latest Cases

Civil procedure – Summary decree: Court of Session: Refusing an apppeal in an action for payment of solicitors' fees against a sheriff principal's refusal of an appeal against a sheriff's interlocutor dismissing the defender's counterclaim on the pursuer's motion for summary decree, the court held that the sheriff was entitled, on the averments and the other material relied on, to conclude that the counterclaim had no real prospect of success, and the sheriff principal did not err in his approach to the appeal before him. 

Sentence – Sexual offences prevention order. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in dismissing the claimant's appeal, held that the powers conferred under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 enabled a person who was subject to a Sexual Offences Prevention Order to be required to wear location monitoring device (a tag) when away from the premises at which he was residing or staying overnight. 

Sentence – Imprisonment. The claimant was a serving life prisoner, who had completed the minimum custodial term of his sentence, sought judicial review alleging systemic failures in placing him in open conditions and approved premises for resettlement overnight release. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the Secretary of State had not failed to make reasonable provision for systems and resources, resulting in delay, in breach of arts 5 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights or constituting Wednesbury irrationality. Further, the Secretary of State had not breached his own polices and the claimant had not been discriminated against on grounds of gender or 'other status' for the purposes of art 14 of the Convention. 

Personal injury – Breach of statutory duty – Liability – Quantum. Court of Session: In an action for damages by a joiner who sustained a head injury and a broken wrist in an accident at work, and suffered from pre- and post-traumatic amnesia, the court, having concluded that on balance of probabilities the pursuer fell when climbing a ladder and that the cause of the fall was probably that the ladder, being unsecured and placed on a new slidy chipboard floor, simply slipped, found liability for breaches of workplace regulations established, rejected a plea of contributory negligence, and awarded £30,000 for solatium and £10,000 for loss of employability. 

Professional negligence – Solicitor – Duty of care. Court of Session: In an action in which a bank sought damages for loss it claimed to have suffered as a result of its reliance on statements a solicitor made in an email during a property transaction, alleging it was misled into discharging security over three properties owned by the solicitor's client when only one property should have been released from security, the court held that there were misstatements in the email but that it was not reasonable for a bank in the pursuers' position to rely on the erroneous information without checking its accuracy; and that a solicitor in the first defender's position would not foresee that such a bank would reasonably rely on that information without carrying out such a check. 

Employment – Race discrimination. The employee worked as a domestic worker for the employers. She brought a claim for race discrimination alleging that she had been treated in a demeaning manner, in part due to her low status, which were was infected with considerations of caste. The employers applied to strike out the claim, contending that 'caste' did not fall within the definition of 'race' in s 9 of the Equality Act 2010. The employment tribunal refused the application. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in dismissing the employers' appeal, held that, whilst 'caste' as an autonomous concept did not come within s 9(1) of the Act, it was possible that the facts as found in the present claim might come within the scope of that phrase. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The Divisional Court gave a definitive judgment that the evidence demonstrated that there were not substantial grounds for believing that there was a real risk that the appellant or the first interested party would face prison conditions that had been in breach of art 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights on extradition to Italy. Either the presumption was restored that Italy, as a European Union state, would fulfil its obligations under art 3 of the Convention or Italy had proved, by cogent evidence, to relieve the doubts. 

Employment – Dismissal. In proceedings relating to alleged unfair dismissal, the question arose of whether the employees had been assigned to an organised grouping of employees within the meaning of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 SI 2006/246. The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that, among other things, the judge had failed to consider the organisational structure of the putative transferor and the role of the claimants. 

Town and country planning – Planning permission. The applicant sought judicial review of the respondent local planning authority's grant of outline planning permission to a developer where the relevant site was near breeding populations of woodlark and nightjar. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, hearing the case at first instance, dismissed the application. It held, inter alia, that the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, SI 2010/490, supplemented by the National Planning Policy Framework, did not require a planning authority to undertake a 'shadow assessment' or other quasi-appropriate assessment in respect of sites which were not proposed Special Protection Areas (pSPA). In the present case, the proposed site was not a pSPA, there had been no duty to consult Natural England and the advice given by that body had been no more than a material consideration to have been taken into account. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The claimant failed to enter a witness statement in time for statements to be exchanged and nevertheless sought to adduce the witness statement seeking relief from sanctions under CPR 3.9. The court was prepared to admit certain parts of the witness statement but not others as it would cause prejudice to the defendant.