Latest Cases

Contract – Construction. The claimant construction company carried out work at two NHS premises. The relevant contract stipulated that the work would be assessed by an independent tester. The tester refused to grant the necessary completion certificate. The claimant brought proceedings. It submitted that a narrower construction of the contracts was to be preferred, so that all that was required was compliance with the completion criteria. The second defendant NHS trust submitted that any breach of contract relating to the quality or conformity of the works required the tester to withhold the completion certificate. The Technology and Construction Court held that, on the true construction of the contracts, the claimant's interpretation was to be preferred. 

Contract – Illegality. The claimant sought the repayment of funds paid to the defendant for the purposes of an illegal agreement for insider dealing in shares, which had been frustrated. The judge dismissed his claim on the basis that it was barred by illegality. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the appeal, held that the judge had not been wrong to find that the claimant had needed to rely on any illegality in making his claim. However, it was open to the claimant to rely on the wholly unperformed illegal agreement and be entitled to recover his money, as genuine repentance on the part of the withdrawer was not required. 

Parent and child – Contact. Court of Session: In an appeal by the mother of three children in foster care against a sheriff's decision confirming a children's hearing's refusal to increase the level of contact between her and the children, the court held that the sheriff did not err in refusing the appeal to her, and observed that the appeal to the Court of Session was entirely futile. 

Criminal law – Manslaughter. The claimant's son died whilst being restrained by a doorman of a public house. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) decided not to prosecute the doorman for either gross negligence manslaughter or unlawful act manslaughter. The claimant sought judicial review. The Administrative Court allowed the application to the extent that it quashed the CPS's decision not to prosecute the doorman for unlawful act manslaughter. The way in which the case was advanced in the present proceedings, namely that the restraint was inherently very dangerous and could not constitute reasonable force, even if D had not appreciated how dangerous it was, had not been fully analysed. 

Employment – Discrimination. Following the judgment of the Supreme Court in Seldon v Clarkson Wright & Jakes (see [2012] 3 All ER 1301), the case returned to the employment tribunal (the tribunal) for a decision as to whether the selection by the employer solicitors' firm of the compulsory age of 65 for retirement had been proportionate to achieve its aims of retention and workforce planning. The Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld the tribunal's decision that the choice of age 65 had been proportionate. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant applied for leave to remain in the United Kingdom and for an application fee waiver under the defendant Secretary of State's destitution fee waiver policy. The Secretary of State rejected the application, refusing to waive the application fee as the claimant did not qualify for a waiver. The claimant sought judicial review. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that the policy was unlawful in that the refusal to waive the application fee was incompatible with the claimant's rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Restraint of trade by agreement – Employer and employee. The claimant sought to invoke a restrictive covenant in the defendant's employment contract following the defendant's resignation to work for another company. The judge, in considering the restrictive covenant had added correcting words and granted the claimant an injunction. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, discharged the injunction and held that the wording of the restrictive covenant had been clear and had not required additional words to be read in by the judge. 

Equity – Undue influence. The deceased had transferred three sums of money to the defendants prior to her death. The judge found presumed undue influence and unjust enrichment against the defendants, and ordered them to reimburse the deceased's estate. They appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the transactions had called for an explanation and that the presumption of undue influence had not been rebutted. Further, there was no merit in the contention that the judge had erred in his approach to quantum, as the deceased had had no immediate desire to make a new will to exclude the claimants. 

Arbitration – Award. The claimant brought arbitration proceedings against the defendant in the United States for the enforcement of a guarantee concerning acquisition of shares in a US coal mining operation. The arbitration tribunal made an award in favour of the claimant. The defendant company applied, under s 103 of the Arbitration Act 1996, for an order setting aside the award. Alternatively, the defendant applied for an adjournment of the decision on recognition and enforcement of the award pending the determination of proceedings filed by EGFL in New York challenging the award. The Commercial Court granted the adjournment, conditional upon the giving of security by EGFL for the full amount of the award. 

Criminal evidence and procedure – Identification evidence – Sufficiency of evidence – Misdirection – Unreasonable verdict. High Court of Justiciary: Refusing an appeal by an appellant who was convicted of assault and robbery, the court held that emulator evidence and a dock identification were not inadmissible per se, and in any event the evidence for the Crown, looked at as a whole, amounted to a cogent case, the sheriff had not erred in failing to direct the jury as to the definition of assault and robbery, and the verdict could not be described as unreasonable in any respect.