Latest Cases

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. 

Negligence – Causation. The claimants brought a claim in negligence in respect of their deceased daughter against the first defendant hospital. They also brought a claim for nervous shock in respect of the admitted negligence of the second defendant hospital. The Queen's Bench Division held that the first defendant had not been negligent and it could not be said that the admitted negligence of the second defendant has caused the claimants nervous shock. 

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. 

European Union – Employment. The Court of Justice of the European gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that Council Directive (EC) 2000/78 should be interpreted as meaning that the obesity of a worker constituted a 'disability' within the meaning of that directive where it entailed a limitation resulting in particular from long-term physical, mental or psychological impairments which in interaction with various barriers could hinder the full and effective participation of the person concerned in professional life on an equal basis with other workers. It was for the national court to determine whether those conditions were met. 

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. 

European Union – Rules on competition. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the application by the Pilkington group of companies for annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 6815 final of 12 November 2008 relating to a proceeding pursuant to art 81 [EC] and art 53 of the European Economic Area Agreement, as amended, in so far as it concerned the Pilkington group, and also, in the alternative, for annulment of art 2 of that decision in that it had imposed a fine on the group or, in the further alternative, application for reduction of that fine. 

Family proceedings – Jurisdiction. The proceedings concerned the father's private law application in relation to his daughter. The judge had found that the English court had had jurisdiction to hear the proceedings in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) 2201/2003 (concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility) (Brussels II Revised). The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the mother's appeal. The judge's order declaring and ordering that the court had jurisdiction had to be set aside and, in its place, it was declared that, in accordance with Brussels II Revised, the English court did not have jurisdiction to determine the father's application. 

Damages – Personal injury. The claimant had sustained a severe brain injury when he was 11 years of age. Liability was apportioned 30:70. The issue of quantum was to be decided. The Queen's Bench Division held that the claimant's condition had resulted from the organic brain injury, and could only reasonably be treated by a regime of 24-hour personalised care. He was to be awarded damages under the various usual heads of damage on that basis. 

European Union – Rules on competition. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the application by Si.mobil telekomunikacijske storitve d.d. (Si.mobil) for annulment of Commission decision C(20110 355 final rejecting Si.mobil's complaint concerning infringements of art 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union allegedly committed by Mobitel, telekomunikacijske storitve d.d. on a number of wholesale and retail mobile telephone markets. 

Environment – Protection. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, dismissed appeals by a wealthy businessman against his conviction for offences under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and against his sentence, namely a fine of £450,000 plus costs. The court held, among other things, that as the defendant had maintained his plea of guilty in the circumstances that he had, he had accepted in clear and unequivocal terms that he had caused the operations that resulted the damage.