Latest Cases

Sentencing – Causing death whilst driving. High Court of Justiciary: In an appeal against sentence by an appellant who pled guilty to a charge of causing death by dangerous driving and was given a custodial sentence of 9 years (108 months), discounted from 9 years and 6 months, the court, substituting a custodial sentence of 92 months, held that, taking into account all the circumstances including mitigation, the appropriate headline sentence was a custodial sentence of 8 years 6 months' (102 months) and that the sentencing judge did not give full effect to the obvious benefits of the guilty plea, which merited a discount of 10% rather than 5%. 

Criminal law – Trial. The defendant company appealed against its conviction for failing, so far as reasonably practicable, to ensure the health and safety of its employees after an employee suffered a fractured arm at work. It contended that the judge had erred in rejecting its no case submission on the basis that a risk that would only have materialised if an employee had done something very foolish was insufficient to pass the evidential threshold. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the creation of a material risk by the carelessness, including gross carelessness, of an employee remained a material risk. Accordingly, the judge had been right to conclude that the threshold for the case to go to the jury had been crossed. 

Immigration – Deportation. The claimant, a Jamaican national, was granted indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom, but was ineligible for British citizenship because of his illegitimacy. He was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to nine years' imprisonment. The defendant Secretary of State ordered his deportation and certified his human rights claim as clearly unfounded. The claimant sought judicial review. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that the claimant's rights under arts 8 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights had been violated, that the legislation could not be read down to comply with those rights and quashed the certification. 

Practice – Summary judgment. The defendant had given two personal guarantees to the claimant bank as security for loans made to his companies. When the bank called in the loans, the companies did not pay and the bank sought to enforce the personal guarantees. The defendant did not pay. The bank commenced proceedings and obtained summary judgment. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the defendant's appeal and granted him conditional leave to defend the claim. The defendant's defence, although improbable, was not wholly implausible and the judge had erred in having found that the defendant had had no real prospect of establishing those defences. 

Landlord and tenant – Leasehold enfranchisement. The claimant company (Westbrook) had granted sub-underleases of almost all of the flats in a property to 612 companies (the SVPs). It sought a declaration that it was entitled to the freehold of the entire property. The defendant was the freeholder of the property. It challenged the entitlement of Westbrook to purchase. The Chancery Division held that, on the evidence, the challenges to Westbrook's enfranchisement application failed. It was entitled to declarations as to its entitlement to enfranchise and other relief. 

Solicitors – Complaints – Time bar. Court of Session: Refusing a solicitor's appeal against the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission's decision that although the normal one year time-limit had not not met there were exceptional circumstances for accepting a complaint against him for investigation, the court held that the appellant had failed to establish any material error of law by the SLCC, nor any other ground of challenge to its decision to accept the complaint for investigation. 

European Union – Value added tax. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art 16 of Sixth Council Directive (EEC) 77/388 (on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment), as amended by Council Directive (EC) 2006/18, and arts 154 and 157 of Council Directive (EC) 2006/112 (on the common system of value added tax). The request had been made in proceedings between Equoland Soc. coop. arl (Equoland) and the Livorno Customs Agency (Italy) involving a decision of the latter requiring Equoland to pay VAT on the importation of goods not physically placed in a tax warehouse, even though Equoland had already paid that tax under the reverse charge mechanism. 

Patent – Infringement. The proceedings concerned cable television services. The claimant companies sought relief in respect of alleged patent infringement by the defendant companies. In the course of proceedings, the claimants applied to amend the claims. The Patents Court held that, on the evidence, none of the claims in issue would be amended. An order would be made that the patent be revoked. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The proceedings concerned the care of a young child, A, whose parents were Polish. The court made an order that ruled out any alternative family placement, including the notion of a placement in Poland with A's grandparents. The parents appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that, even if the judge's words had not inappropriately ruled out the grandparents, there had at least been a misunderstanding leading to the severe limiting of placement options. Further, the authority had fallen short of what was expected of it, and the process that it had implemented had been unsatisfactory. The care order and placement for adoption order would be set aside and replaced for the time being by an interim care order. 

Electricity – Supply. The claimant owned a power station, but intended to become a predominantly biomass fuelled generator. In order to do so, it applied for an investment contract from the government. The Department of Energy and Climate Change, to which the defendant Secretary of State had delegated the decision, determined that the claimant satisfied its selection criteria at the initial application stages, but decided that, at the final application phase, the claimant did not satisfy its selection criteria and was ineligible. The claimant sought judicial review of the decision. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that the decision was Wednesbury unreasonable.