Latest Cases

Practice – Personal injuries action. The claimant was an eight-year-old girl with profound disabilities. Her injuries had been caused by the defendants' admitted negligence. The parties had reached agreement as to general damage. There was, however, a very substantial dispute in relation to future accommodation. The claimant sought the sum of £1.6m by way of interim payments in respect of accomodation. The Queen's Bench Division following the law allowed the application. 

Human Rights – Right to respect for private and family life. The defendant Secretary of State had policies concerning the holding of information of the claimant's gender reassignment. The claimant issued judicial review proceedings, contending that the Secretary of State's policies were unlawful. The Administrative Court held that, under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, although two policies had a proper legal foundation, they lacked clarity and precision, were not readily accessible, and they would need to be kept under review. That further applied to the claimant's case of indirect discrimination. However, there was no breach of the public sector equality duty. 

Jurisdiction – Challenge to jurisdiction. The claimant credit rating company brought claims, including the 'alternative declaration claim' in the English court against the defendants, who were said to be investors in financial instruments which had been issued by the defendant bank (the bank). The fifth defendant bank, which was domiciled in The Netherlands, sought a declaration that the English court lacked jurisdiction to hear the claims against it and sought an order setting aside service out of the jurisdiction. The Commercial Court, dismissing the applications, held that there was a lis between the bank and the claimant on the alternative declaration claim. 

Criminal law – Harassment. The claimant, Halcyon, was operated by B out of a premised used by L. The business of Halcyon was, essentially, to be run by B, to provide her with a job and an income, but with her mother and her brother having a financial interest in the business. In 2010, B incorporated another company and some of Halcyon's customers transferred their business to Mint. B ceased to hold any issued shares in Halcyon, her shares being transferred to her mother. There were two actions before the court, in the first action, Halcyon brought an action contending that Mint had acquired the business of former clients of Halcyon by misuse of confidential information of Halcyon; in breach of implied terms of the contracts of employment of B and M, the second defendant. In a second action, B, as claimant contended that various steps had been taken to manoeuvre her out of Halcyon which amounted to harassment. The Queen's Bench Division, considering the law on fiduciary duties and harassment dismissed both claims. 

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. 

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. 

Town and country planning – Development. The claimant was promoting a new village concept on land that was not within the Green Belt. The planning inspector rejected the claimant's proposed development and required the authority to modify their draft local plan strategy. The claimant sought judicial review of the modifications endorsed by the authority, which included using Green Belt land. In dismissing the application, the Administrative Court held that it did not have jurisdiction to determine the claim under s 113(2) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. 

Practice – Summary judgment. The defendant, W, had his employment terminated. He brought proceedings for unfair dismissal, which were settled. Part of the settlement involved an assessment of his shareholding in the first claimant company. A dispute arose concerning the accuracy of the assessment. The claimants brought proceedings, contesting the valuation. The defendant successfully applied to strike out the proceedings. The claimants appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that, on the evidence, it was clear that there was no real prospect of the claim succeeding at trial. 

Immigration – Rules. The appellant foreign nationals had all been refused leave to remain in the United Kingdom and the Secretary of State had determined that their removal would be proportionate. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed all of their appeals and gave guidance on the obligations of the Secretary of State under para 353B (exceptional circumstances) of the Immigration Rules.