Latest Cases

Right to claim body for burial. Sheriff Court: In an action which concerned the right to claim the body of a deceased soldier for burial, the court held that the pursuer as his widow was entitled to make the arrangements for his funeral, as she had priority over his mother, as the person nominated as executor in his will, and other close family members. 

Contract – Damages for breach. The claimant company brought a claim against the first defendant for damages for breaches of the terms of an agency agreement and/or breach of fiduciary duties by reason of his directorship and/or misuse of confidential information contained in the company's database. The company sought damages for unlawful means conspiracy in respect of the three defendants. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. In the context of contentious defamation proceedings between the husband and former wife, the wife applied for an order that the husband answer a number of requests made in a request under CPR 18 and that time for service of the defence should be extended until 14 days after provision of the answers. The Queen's Division held that the application did not fall within the purpose of CPR 18 and would be refused. 

Immigration – Permission to appeal – Supreme Court. Court of Session: Refusing a motion by a failed Nigerian asylum seeker, applying for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against a decision of the Court of Session refusing permission to appeal to it from decision of the Upper Tribunal, the court held that the motion could competently be heard by a procedural judge of the Inner House, the motion was not competent, and even if it had been the court would not have granted it. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The defendant local authority had produced a development plan for a new housing development. It also applied for planning permission for a new waste facility nearby the proposed development. The authority granted planning permission for the waste facility and the claimant, a local resident, sought judicial review. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the authority's grant of planning permission had not failed to have regard to material considerations and was not Wednesbury unreasonable. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. In response to the father's application for contact with his son, the mother alleged domestic violence against him. She wished to call her 13 year old daughter to give evidence. The judge made an order directing that a CAFCASS adviser be appointed to meet with and interview the daughter and prepare a report for the court on whether or not it was appropriate or harmful for her to give evidence. The father appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, considered the position regarding evidence from a child who was not the subject of the proceedings and held that the judge had not erred in her approach. 

Child – Care. M, who was 24 years old, was in the late stages of her first pregnancy. She suffered from persecuting delusions including a belief that mental health services were 'murderers' and would murder her and her unborn child. The local authority, applied to the court for permission not to disclose to M the care plan for the removal of her baby at birth. They also applied for a reporting restrictions order. The Family Division held that despite the fact that both orders sought were draconian, the orders would be granted in the circumstances of the case. 

Trade mark – Infringement. The Chancery Division found that the defendant had infringed the claimant's registered mark but had not been guilty of passing off, in the use of the word 'glee' in its television series (see[2014] All ER (D) 70 (Feb)). The court made rulings concerning the relief to be granted. 

Employment – 'Worker'. The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal against a finding of the employment tribunal that the claimant had been an employee of an insolvent company, for which she had been the sole-owner, prior to it becoming insolvent and therefore entitled to a redundancy payment pursuant to s 166 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that, despite the claimant not having enforced her contractual right to the payment of a salary in the two years prior to insolvency, the tribunal had been entitled, on the facts, to find that the claimant had been an employee at the material time. 

Nuisance – Noise. The Supreme Court ruled on consequential issues arising from its earlier judgment in Coventry and others v Lawrence and another[2014] All ER (D) 245 (Feb) concerning an action in nuisance brought by the appellant owners and occupiers of a residential bungalow against the respondent occupiers of a nearby stadium and their landlords. The issue as to whether the costs regime under the Access to Justice Act 1999, and in particular a claimant's right to recover any success fee and ATE premium from an unsuccessful defendant infringed the European Convention on Human Rights was adjourned for further hearing.