Latest Cases

Company – Registration. The claimant, a Seychelles international business company, sought a declaration of invalidity in respect of a declaration of trust, by the first defendant, that the claimant held its 99% interest in the fourth defendant company on behalf of the second defendant. The claimant also sought rectification of the register of companies. The Chancery Division, in allowing the claim, held that there was an implied choice of English law and, on the facts, the declaration of trust had been made without the consent of the majority of the claimant's shareholders, and would be declared invalid. The court further ordered that the register of companies be rectified accordingly. 

Human rights – Right to liberty and security. Following his brother's death after having been detained by United Kingdom armed forces in Iraq, the applicant lodged an application against the UK, alleging, among other things, breaches of art 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The European Court of Human Rights, in dismissing the application, held that, although the brother had fallen within the jurisdiction of the UK, his detention had not been arbitrary and there had been no violation of art 5 of the Convention. 

European Union – Jurisdiction. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of arts 3(1) and 44(3) of Council Regulation (EC) 1346/2000 (on insolvency proceedings) and arts 1(2)(b) and 71 of Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001 (on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters). The request had been made in proceedings between Nickel & Goeldner Spedition GmbH and "Kintra" UAB, a company that had been placed in liquidation, concerning payment in respect of services comprising the international carriage of goods. 

Practice – Interim remedy. The claimants asserted that they were recruited by British forces in Afghanistan as covert human intelligence sources (CHIS). In the instant urgent application for interim relief, they sought orders that the defendants take all steps necessary to provide them with secure accommodation in Afghanistan and associated living expenses. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, rejected the application based on the claimants' private law claims. Further, the government's policy concerning support locally employed staff did not apply to the very different position of CHIS and the British state had had no jurisdiction over the claimants with respect to their claim based on the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Damages – Personal injury. The defendants admitted the negligent exacerbation of the claimant's T7 paraplegia by deep (grade 4) pressure sores with the consequent infection of the bone marrow, abnormal shortening of the muscle tissue of her legs and a hip dislocation. The Queen's Bench Division considered the extent to which the claimant's condition had been made worse and what damages should be paid. Applying the principle that a tortfeasor had to take his victim as he found him and make full compensation for their worsened condition, the court found the defendants' negligence had made the claimant's position materially and significantly worse than it would have been but for that negligence. 

Employment tribunal – Practice. The employment tribunal had accepted the employer's limitation application but indicated that, even if the employee's complaints were out of time, it would extend time under the just and equitable escape clause for all claims. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in allowing the employer's appeal, held that, instead of considering first whether the claims had been in time as part of a continuing state of affairs, the tribunal had jumped straight to the just and equitable escape clause without hearing full submissions from the parties' representatives. There was, therefore, procedural irregularity and, accordingly, the limitation issue would be remitted to the same tribunal for re-hearing. 

Employment tribunal – Procedure. The employment tribunal, having struck out the employee's claims in his absence, invited the employee, upon his late arrival to the hearing, to address it on whether it should review that decision. The employee said that he had been having a psychotic episode and, although he had no medical evidence, the tribunal observed that he exhibited considerable signs of disquiet. The tribunal did not adjourn and declined to revoke the judgment. The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that, in the circumstances, the tribunal's failure to consider an adjournment and to require the employee to continue with his application, notwithstanding his evident ill-health and lack of relevant documentation, was so obviously wrong that the employee's appeal had to succeed. 

Town and country planning – Planning permission – Waste to energy plant. Court of Session: In appeals by a planning authority and an objector against a reporter's decision to grant planning permission, subject to conditions, for a waste to energy plant, the court held that a condition concerning waste imported from outwith Highland area was invalid because it enlarged the permission beyond that which was applied for and was considered at the inquiry, that because the condition was not capable of being severed from the rest of the decision the inquiry would have to be reopened, but it need deal only with that condition. 

Solemn procedure – Time bar – Twelve-month rule. High Court of Justiciary: Refusing appeals by five appellants against the sheriff at Paisley's decision, at end of the April 2014 sitting, to grant a motion to adjourn their trial on charges of serious assault and to extend the 12-month time bar, the court held that the developing issues surrounding the fitness of one of the appellants to stand trial constituted sufficient cause to satisfy the first stage test in HM Advocate v Swift, and that the sheriff did not err in exercising his discretion by granting the motion. 

Practice – Family proceedings. During a fact-finding hearing concerning the death of a child, a schedule of failings, in which the investigation into the child's death was analysed, was produced. The judgement was not made public and a reporting restriction order was made. The media applied for disclosure of the fact-finding judgment and the schedule of failings to their legal advisors. The Family Division held that the balance fell in favour of disclosure of the fact-finding judgment, but not the schedule of failings, to identified legal advisers to the media for an identified purpose and subject to strict controls.