Latest Cases

Sentencing – Punishment part – Murder. High Court of Justiciary: Refusing an appeal by the Crown against the punishment part of a life sentence for murder, the court concluded that although, when sentencing the respondent for the murder of his wife by stabbing her the judge, in selecting a punishment part as low as 12 years, undoubtedly imposed a lenient sentence, the punishment part could not be said to be unduly lenient. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant issued judicial review proceedings, seeking to quash the planning permission granted by the defendant minerals planning authority to a company for temporary permission for exploration and appraisal concerning an existing hydrocarbon lateral borehole. The Planning Court, in dismissing the application, held that the authority had determined the merits after a full discussion and a thorough exploration of the issues raised. The claimant's case failed, as its legal arguments neither addressed nor reflected the relevant principles and the authority had not been misled. 

Medical practitioner – Professional misconduct. The appellant registered midwife appealed against the respondent Nursing and Midwifery Council's Conduct and Competence Committee's finding of impairment by misconduct and suspending her from practise for four months. The Administrative Court found that some of the Committee's findings on dishonestly had not been satisfactory or satisfactorily expressed. It appeared to have approached the issue of dishonesty in an irregular way, such as to render its finding in that important respect unsustainable. That part of the appeal would be allowed and remitted for reconsideration. 

Town and country planning – Planning authority. The claimant challenged, by way of judicial review, the decision of the defendant local authority to allow the Uppingham neighbourhood development plan to proceed to a neighbourhood planning referendum. The Administrative Court dismissed the claim. It held, inter alia, that, on an overall reading of the screening report and knowledge of the author's clear recognition of what the legislation had required of him, he had not failed to consider the positive environmental effects when he had concluded that there had been no significant environmental effects. 

Occupier's liability – Common duty of care. The claimant fell on local authority property. She brought an action in negligence and the court found the local authority negligent with the claimant being 50% contributorily negligent. The local authority appealed. The Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the judge on the basis that is had been reasonably foreseeable that the claimant would fall. 

Warrant – Search warrant. The claimant sought judicial review of the first defendant's decision that it had no jurisdiction to entertain his application for the return of items seized under search warrants. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the application, held that, as the only route to challenge whether a warrant was lawful was by way of judicial review, the judge had correctly held he had no jurisdiction. Further, the claimant had not made out his case that the searches and seizures had gone beyond the purpose for which the warrants had been issued. 

Employment tribunal – Jurisdiction. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (the EAT) dismissed the employee's appeal against the striking out by the employment tribunal of both his claims for unfair constructive dismissal and alleged detrimental treatment for having made protected disclosures (the whistle-blowing claim). The EAT decided that the tribunal had correctly struck out both claims. 

Building contract – Adjudication. A dispute arose between the claimant contractor and the defendant employer in respect of the claimant's application for interim payment for work done under a building contract. The claimant sought summary judgment to enforce a decision in its favour in an adjudication and for a declaration that the adjudicator in a second adjudication, brought by the defendant, lacked jurisdiction. The Technology and Construction Court, in granting summary judgment, held that the claimant was entitled to a declaration that the decision in the second adjudication was invalid for want of jurisdiction where the question in issue had to be taken to have been decided in the first adjudication 

Equity – Mistake. The claimant trustees of a settlement applied for an order to set aside a clause in a deed of appointment on the ground of equitable mistake. The intention had been for relevant share to remain in the settlement in order to avoid any charge on them to capital gains tax for the foreseeable future. However, the effect of the clause had been to appoint the shares and a cash sum in the first claimant absolutely. The Chancery Division, in allowing the application, ruled that the claimants were entitled to rescission where the mistakes had been causative and very serious and where it would be unconscionable in principle to leave the appointment uncorrected. 

Minor – Abduction. In an appeal by the mother against an order granted by the High Court for the summary return of a child, A, to Russia, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, considered whether the principle of effective access to justice for a child was engaged in the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction relating to the abduction or retention of a child where neither the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of Child Abduction nor Council Regulation (EC) 2201/2003 (concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000) applied. In allowing the appeal, the court held that there was an obligation in principle on the High Court sitting in its inherent jurisdiction in relation to an abduction application to consider whether and how to hear the child concerned.