Latest Cases

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. 

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. 

Town and country planning – Planning authority. The claimants had interests in two sites in Solihull, where they proposed to undertake housing development. They challenged the defendant local authority's adoption of the Solihull Local Plan (the SLP), which placed both sites in the Green Belt. The judge upheld their claim. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the authority's appeal, held that the National Planning Policy Framework had effected a radical change and that the judge's reasoning had been correct. 

Nursing and midwifery – Professional conduct. Court of Session: Allowing an appeal against a decision of the Nursing and Midwifery Council's Conduct and Competence Committee, which found the appellant guilty of serious misconduct and issued a striking off order, the court held that the appellant's representation in connection with the proceedings before the committee was inadequate and that the committee erred in law by accepting the methodology the respondents relied on to identify the person said to be responsible for taking drugs from the ward where the appellant worked without authorization. 

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. 

Sentence – Notification and orders. Following conviction for sexual offences, the claimant was obliged to comply with the notification requirements of Pt 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 for life. On several occasions following M's release from prison, the police visited his house informally. It was said that M did not truly consent to their entry because his will was overborne by the knowledge that, if he refused them entry, they would be able to obtain a warrant, under s 96B of the Act. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held, inter alia, that the practice of making unannounced visits to offenders' homes seeking entry by consent was proportionate and did not involve an unlawful interference with their rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

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. 

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. 

Sentence – Imprisonment. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendants' decisions, holding him in custody for seven years after the expiry of the minimum term of his sentence of imprisonment for public protection. The Divisional Court, in allowing the application, held that the defendants' failings had resulted in a 12 month period of avoidable delay, warranting something more than declaratory relief. Accordingly, the sum of £2,500 would be awarded for a breach of the claimant's rights under art 5(4) of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Extradition – Extradition order. Three appeals against extradition to Poland were heard together because they raised, for the first time in the Divisional Court, common issues as to the compatibility of extradition with rights under the European Convention on Human Rights and the proportionality of extradition that arose under s 21A(1)(a) and (b) of the Extradition Act 2003. Having given extensive guidance on s 21A of the Act, the court held that the appellants' extradition was not incompatible with their rights under art 8 of the Convention and was proportionate within the meaning of s 21A(1)(b) of the Act.