Latest Cases

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. In a libel case brought by the claimant against the defendant, the trial judge determined the meanings of the words complained of. Following that determination, the defendant applied to re-amend their defence. In a case management decision, the Queen's Bench Division, applying established principle, held that the amendments would not be allowed but that nevertheless the defendants would get the opportunity to defend their case. 

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. 

Practice – Summary judgment. The proceedings related to advice given by the defendant companies to the claimant company during the course of the purchase and renovation of a hotel. In the course of proceedings, the defendants applied to strike out the claim. The Technology and Construction Court, in dismissing the application, held that it could not be satisfied, on the evidence, that it was an appropriate claim to strike out at the present stage. 

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%. 

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. 

Immigration – Appeal. The issue for determination was whether the condition, under art 7(1)(c) of Directive (EC) 2004/38, that the appellant's wife should have comprehensive sickness insurance cover in the United Kingdom had been satisfied, as she had been entitled to use the National Health Service (the NHS). The Court of Appeal, Civil Division held that the conditions in art 7(1) of the Directive were to be interpreted strictly. Accordingly, the fact that the wife would be entitled to treatment under the NHS was nothing to the point and the appellant was not entitled to qualify for permanent residency in the UK. 

Town and country planning – Wind farm. Court of Session: Allowing a reclaiming motion and dismissing a judicial review petition in which the petitioners sought reduction of a decision by the Scottish Ministers to grant consent for the construction and operation of a wind farm, the court held that on a proper interpretation of the Electricity Act 1989 the holding of a licence to generate electricity under s 6 or an exemption under s 5 was not a condition precedent to the granting of consent for the construction a generating station under s 36, and that the Scottish Ministers' grant of consent had been a lawful decision once due account was taken of the Wild Birds Directive. 

Criminal law – Trial. The Presiding Judge of the Senior Judges' Court in the Sovereign Base Areas of Cyprus sat, with two others, in the trial convicting the appellants. He then nominated another Senior Judge to hear the appellants' appeals, which were dismissed. The appellants appealed. The Privy Council, in allowing the appeal, held that the appearance of justice had not sufficiently been done. The Presiding Judge had nominated a judge to hear an appeal from himself, which carried an appearance of lack of independence and impartiality in relation to the process, viewed as a whole, which would impact on an objective informed observer. 

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. 

Crown – Prerogative. The present case was the first time that the grant or refusal of a Royal Charter had been the subject of litigation. The claimant issued judicial review proceedings, seeking to prevent the interested party being granted a Royal Charter. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the bare proposition that the government might profit from the decision did not mean that it had to be set aside on the ground of apparent bias and the allegation of predetermination was ill-founded. Further, the consequences for the claimant of the grant of a Royal Charter did not satisfy the test of qualification as a subject for judicial review.