Latest Cases

Partnership – Dissolution. In order to make a valuation clause in the family farming partnership agreement workable, the court had to read in amendments so that so that it was not requiring the Continuing Partners in the partnership to pay unknown sums. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held it was necessary to decide when the purchase price was ascertained for the purposes of cl 13 and that was the date on which the accounts had been produced by the accountants.

Extradition – Judicial authority. The Prosecutor General's Office in Lithuania was a 'judicial authority' for the purposes of s 2(2) of the Extradition Act 2003, and for the purposes of the Council of the European Union Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant and Surrender Procedures between Member States of the European Union 2002/584/JHA. The Divisional Court, in dismissing an application for permission to appeal, held that to seek to argue to the contrary was unarguable.

Coroner – Inquest. In considering whether it was safe to leave causation to the jury, a coroner had to have regard to all relevant evidence, including general statistical evidence drawn from population data, such as the rate of survival in a particular group. The Divisional Court held that the defendant coroner had fallen into error in concluding that the lack of a clear cause of death had prevented the jury from being able to consider the possible causal effect of the delay in treatment and quashed the record of inquest.

Town and country planning – Grant of planning permission – Development plan –Football stadium development. Court of Session: Refusing a petition seeking reduction of a planning authority's decision to grant planning permission for a football stadium development on a green belt site, contrary to the provisions of the local development plan, the court rejected contentions that the council had made material errors of law in the interpretation and application of its own development policy and that it had failed to establish the necessary factual basis for the sequential approach that it adopted in concluding that there was no alternative available site.

Property – Beneficial ownership. The claimant's application for a declaration that he was the sole beneficial owner of three properties succeeded. The Chancery Division held that, on the evidence, the claimant was entitled to have the legal title of the properties transferred to his sole name.

Housing – Local authority. The second defendant charity's arrangements for the allocation of its social housing properties, which in effect precluded any persons who were not members of the Orthodox Jewish community from becoming tenants, were justified as proportionate under ss 158 and 193 of the Equality Act 2010. The Divisional Court further dismissed the claimants' challenge to the first defendant local housing authority's arrangements for the nomination of applicants to the properties, as once it was established that the second defendant was legally entitled to discriminate, the core of their case against it dissolved.

Commercial contract – Terms – Construction. Court of Session: Refusing a reclaiming motion in an action which concerned a contract for the supply of equipment and personnel for the removal and relocation of soil on the seabed close to an offshore wind farm, in which the commercial judge found the defenders liable, in terms of the contract, to pay the pursuers for the services of a sub-sea excavator and its crew after the machine became stuck on the sea-bed because its lifting lug failed when it was being lifted, the court held that the commercial judge had not misapplied the terms of the contract to the facts of the incident: he was not wrong in his interpretation of the terms 'breakdown' and 'temporary abandonment' in the contract; and in relation to the defenders' counterclaim he had not misconstrued its indemnity provisions.

Pension – Pension scheme. The claimant medical company's claim against the defendant directors failed. The Chancery Division held that the defendants had not conspired, or acted in breach of duty, to cause their interests to be preferred over those of the company by making alterations to the company pension scheme. There had been no misconduct or breach of duty.

Proceeds of crime – Confiscation order. A confiscation order was varied, so as to include a tainted gift, namely money which the defendant had given to his girlfriend for the purchase of a council house. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in allowing the prosecution's appeal, ruled that the possibility of hardship or injustice to a third party was not the relevant test under s 6(5)(b) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, as amended, and that, accordingly, the Recorder had fallen into error in applying the concept of proportionality in s 6(5)(b), in circumstances where he had ruled that it would be disproportionate to include the tainted gift in the confiscation order made against the defendant, who had pleaded guilty to money laundering.

Education – Teacher. The Secretary of State for Education's decision to make a prohibition order against the appellant teacher to the effect that he would not be able to teach in any school, sixth form college or similar institution, was not wrong. The Queen's Bench Division held that the gravity of the consequences of the appellant's behaviour towards another teacher had been part of the balancing exercise. It could not outweigh the legitimate public interest in the appropriate case. Consequently, the appellant's appeal against the Secretary of State's decision would be dismissed.