Latest Cases

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The court extended an urgent interim care order in respect of three very young children against a background of a father with unpredictable mental health problems exacerbated by alcohol abuse that could put the children at risk of harm and where the parents had a history of non-cooperation with the local authority and the father required a mental health assessment. 

Cohabitants – Financial provision – Application by survivor for provision on intestacy – Meaning of 'net intestate estate'. Court of Session: Refusing an appeal by a surviving cohabitant to whom a sheriff had awarded a capital sum out of the intestate estate of her deceased partner, the court held that the deceased's 'net intestate estate' in terms of s 29 of the Family Law (Scotland) Act did not include property he owned in Ireland and the sheriff principal was, therefore, correct to reduce the award to the appellant to nil. 

Immigration – Detention. The claimant had arrived in the United Kingdom on a visitor visa, but was detained at the airport and suspected of planning to breach the terms of her visa by taking up paid employment. She was kept in immigration detention for a number of days before being temporarily admitted, but her passport was not returned to her until some months after her visa had expired. The Administrative Court allowed her application for judicial review and made declarations that she had been unlawfully retained and falsely detained and that the decision to detain her had been unlawful and ultra vires. She was awarded a total of £125,000 in damages for false imprisonment, interference with her rights under the European Convention on Human Rights and in exemplary damages. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The applicant father sought a parental responsibility order in respect of E. The respondent, E's mother, requested that she take E for a visit to Poland and the district judge ordered that she undertook to return E to the jurisdiction. However, E's mother flew to Poland with E and stated that they would not return. E's father sought an order for E's mother's committal for contempt of court and, further, restoration of his application for contact and parental responsibility orders. The Family Division held that it had jurisdiction to make an order for parental responsibility. 

Company – Voluntary winding up. The claimant companies sought relief, under s 212 of the Insolvency Act 1986, for the first defendant's misapplication of a company's funds while acting as its liquidator. The Chancery Division, in allowing the claim, held that the first defendant had acted in breach of the duty implicit in s 107 of the 1986 Act and had acted negligently in paying out the funds. Further, the first defendant's defences, including under s 1157 of the Companies Act 2006 and the illegality of the company's conduct were rejected, as her conduct had not been reasonable and the illegality defence did not arise in the circumstances. 

Landlord and tenant – Variation of lease – Personal bar – Rei interventus – Waiver. Court of Session: In an action in which the owner of a shopping centre sought declarator that the tenant of subjects within the centre was personally barred from taking any action to prevent it from constructing a building abutting the existing centre and leasing it to another retailer, the court held that the pursuer was not entitled to declarator, not having established on grounds of the operation of statutory personal bar, or common law rei interventus, or by waiver of its right under the lease that the defender was barred from any action that would prevent the pursuer from constructing and leasing the building. 

Damages – Personal injury. The claimant alleged that he had been exposed to asbestos dust whilst working for the defendants. He had previously brought an action against eight other defendants in 2003 which had ended in a settlement (the 'first action'). In the first action, the claimant had claimed damages for asbestosis and pleural plaques and damages for the risk of mesothelioma. The claimant claimed damages against the defendants for his contraction of pleural mesothelioma. The defendants resisted the claim. Three issues came to be decided as preliminary issues. The Queen's Bench Division held that the proceedings were not an abuse of process and would be allowed to continue by virtue of s 33 of the Limitation Act 1980. 

Employment – Discrimination on grounds of age. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in agreement with the employment tribunal, decided that the claimant had not been subjected to less favourable treatment on account of her age. Her position had been different to that of the comparators because they had been in a position to accept voluntary early retirement (VER) rather than redundancy or redeployment, whereas, at her projected date of leaving employment, that option had not been available to her as the scheme was open to those aged 50 or over and she was aged 49. She could not lawfully have been offered VER at that age as there was a statutory prohibition against it. 

Banking – Negligence. The first claimant, the club, was a casino in Mayfair, owned by the second claimant and third claimant. The defendant was a well known bank incorporated in Italy and part of the BNP Paribas Group. The club brought an action against the bank, alleging that the bank was negligent in providing a reference for one of its customers HB. HB's cheques were then accepted by the club which allowed him to play. HB made losses, the cheques bounced and neither he nor his assets could be found. The club claimed to have lost £1.25m. The Queen's Bench Division held that the club succeeded in its claim but for £802,940 not £1.25m and subject to a deduction of fifteen per cent for contributory negligence. 

Misrepresentation – Fraudulent misrepresentation. The proceedings concerned the purchase of a nightclub by the claimant from the defendant. He brought proceedings against the defendant, contending that he had been induced to make the purchase by fraudulent representations made by the defendant. A number of preliminary issues were considered. The court ruled against the claimant on issues concerning the question of inducement and affirmation by the claimant of the purchase. The claimant appealed. The Chancery Division held that the judge had erred, and that the appeal succeeded.