Latest Cases

Natural justice – Duty to act fairly. The claimant sought an order to quash the first defendant local planning authority's allocation plan, on the basis of serious flaws in its consultation. The Planning Court, in dismissing the application, held that the authority's failure effectively to notify the public that it had been using its website to consult and to use an extra means of consultation had amounted to a breach of art 6 of European Parliament and of the Council Directive (EC) 2001/42 and reg 13 of the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004, SI 2004/1633. However, it exercised its discretion to refuse relief. 

Immigration – Detention. The claimant national of the Democratic Republic of the Congo issued proceedings, alleging that his detention had been unlawful. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the risk of re offending and absconding had justified the claimant's detention whilst the Secretary of State had awaited judgment in R (on the application of P) (DRC) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and another case ([2013] All ER (D) 181 (Dec)). Further, on new evidence, there had been a realistic prospect of removing the claimant after the Secretary of State had abandoned her appeal against that decision. 

European Union – Patent. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling that art 6(2)(c) of Directive (EC) 98/44 of the European Parliament and of the Council (on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions) should be interpreted as meaning that an unfertilised human ovum whose division and further development had been stimulated by parthenogenesis did not constitute a 'human embryo', within the meaning of that provision, if, in the light of current scientific knowledge, that ovum did not, in itself, have the inherent capacity of developing into a human being, that being a matter for the national court to determine. 

Immigration – Unlawful detention – Damages. Court of Session: Refusing a reclaiming motion in judicial review proceedings in which a failed asylum seeker sought damages for wrongful detention, the court held that the Lord Ordinary had not erred in concluding that the petitioner was unlawfully detained for a period of one year and that an award of £36,000 would afford her appropriate compensation. 

Immigration – Detention. The claimant sought judicial review of his immigration detention between 24 August 2012 and 20 November 2013. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that his detention had been entirely reasonable given the high risk of re-offending and absconding. Further his mental illness could be and had been managed in detention, and arts 3 and 8 of the Convention had not been breached. 

Personal injury – Occupiers' liability – Common law duty of care – Vicarious liability. Court of Session: Granting decree of absolvitor in an action by a pursuer who was injured after slipping and falling and who maintained that the fall resulted from picking up diesel on her motor cycle boots in the defenders' car park, the court held that there had not been a breach of the Occupiers Liability (Scotland) Act 1960, or of a common law duty of care, and the defenders' hotel manageress had not failed in her duty of care. 

Boundary – Disputed land. The proceedings concerned a boundary dispute, in which the claimants alleged, inter alia, that the variation of the boundary between their property and the defendant's property had been accomplished by an informal agreement and, alternatively, that they and their predecessors in title were in adverse possession of the disputed land. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held, inter alia, that the judge had been wrong to have found adverse possession of the disputed land. The result of that conclusion, coupled with the inapplicability of the doctrine in Neilson v Poole([1969] 20 P&CR 909) as to boundary agreements, meant that the appeal would be allowed on that point. 

Contract – Condition. Following early termination by the claimant of an ISDA Master Agreement, the claimant sought summary judgment on its claim for money said to be owed. The application was dismissed due to the claimant's failure to provide the defendants with sufficient details of how the sum claimed had been calculated. The claimant provided further calculations, more than two years after termination of the agreement, and again applied for summary judgment. The Commercial Court allowed the application as, on the proper construction of cl 6(d) of the ISDA Master Agreement, the second notification, although late, had been effective and so the sums owed had been payable under that clause. 

Company – Liquidation. Following successful application for relief by liquidators under ss 234 and 236 of the Insolvency Act 1986, the Companies Court considered whether it had jurisdiction to order payment of expenses incurred by the respondent solicitors in complying with an order for the delivery up of documents and electronic files. The court held that, in the circumstances, it should not, in the exercise of it's discretion, allow the respondents to charge for the time incurred. 

Shipping – Charterparty. The Commercial Court considered, where a time charterparty provided for the claimant charterers to give notice or redelivery, what the correct approach was to damages where redelivery took place with insufficient notice. It made findings regarding the appropriate sum to represent loss suffered by the defendant owners of a vessel as a result of short notice given.