Latest Cases

Performance bond – Certificate of default – Validity. Court of Session: In an action which concerned a demand which a planning authority served on the defender, in the form of certificate of default, to make payment of £3.3m in terms of a performance bond relating to a coal mining company's breach of its restoration obligations under an agreement relative to planning permission, the court held that the certificate of default was invalid because it omitted to state, as required by the bond agreement, that the pursuer had given the company a 60-day notice of its failure in the restoration obligations. 

Social security – Income support. The Administrative Court held that the Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Act 2013 was incompatible with the claimants' rights under art 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Act had amounted to an interference in ongoing legal proceedings brought by the first claimant, as it had influenced the judicial determination in favour of the Secretary of State and it was likely to do so in the second claimant's forthcoming appeals. However, art 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention had not been engaged, as the second claimant had not been deprived of an existing possession. 

Prison – Prisoner. The applicant had been a prisoner serving a determinate sentence when he was released early on licence. He was subsequently recalled to prison by the Secretary of State before his sentence would have expired. The Supreme Court held that the applicant could not invoke art 5(4) of the European Convention on Human Rights as, so long as his sentence period had been running, the article had been satisfied by the sentence which had been imposed at his trial. 

Insolvency – Transaction at undervalue. A company sold premises to the second appellant, which granted security over the premises to the first appellant. The company's liquidator sought the reduction of first appellant's security on the basis that the disposition of the company's property had been gratuitous alienation. The Extra Division of the Inner House of the Court of Session set aside the judge's decision that the sale had been for adequate consideration, under s 242(4) of the Insolvency Act 1986. The Supreme Court, in allowing the appellants' appeal, held that the judge had not erred in finding that the alienation had been made for adequate consideration and that the Extra Division had erred in finding that he had gone plainly wrong in dealing with the evidence. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The claimant (BPL) a limited liability partnership and a successor practice of Beecham Peacock Solicitors (BPS) claimed legitimately incurred disbursements incurred on behalf of its clients from the defendant insurance companies. The defendants defence was that as BPS was not a party to the insurance policies it had no right of action against the insurers. Second it was contended that in breach of reg 4(2)(e)(ii) of the Conditional Fee Agreements Regulations 2000 BPS had failed to disclose its interest in recommending the contract of insurance. The defendants applied to strike out the claim and/or for summary judgment. The Queen's Bench dismissed the application. 

Practice – Civil litigation. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, heard three appeals concerning relief from sanctions under CPR r 3.9. In allowing those appeals, the court clarified the earlier guidance given in Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Ltd[2014] 2 All ER 430 and put in place a three stage test for judges assessing an application for relief from sanctions. Further comments were made regarding satellite litigation and cooperation between parties where the court would, in the future, be more ready to penalise non-cooperation. 

Insolvency – Bankruptcy. M and T were former partners in a law firm. The trustees in bankruptcy for M (the M trustees) issued an application under ss 339 and 340 of the Insolvency Act 1986, seeking to impugn a previous assignment, made by M to T, as a preference or a transaction at an undervalue. The registrar held that the claim against the T estate was a provable debt, and that a claim against his wife should be stayed. The M trustees appealed. The Chancery Division, dismissing the claim, held that the registrar had correctly held that the claim against the T estate was a claim which was a provable debt in the T bankruptcy and that she had correctly granted a stay of the proceedings both against the T estate and Mrs T. 

Patent – Petition for revocation. The hearing officer, Deputy Director acting for the Comptroller of Patents, held that two patents held by the claimant company (Farrow) were invalid for obviousness and lack of inventive step. Farrow appealed against the decision concerning one of the two patents. The Patents Court held that, on the evidence, the appeal would be dismissed. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The claimants sought damages for deceit, assault, misfeasance in public office and negligence arising out of long term and intimate sexual relationships which they had with four men, who they alleged were undercover police officers acting under the direction and control of the defendant. The defendant applied to strike out the claims on the grounds that he could not take any active role in the case without infringing the neither confirm nor deny policy (NCND) policy. The Queen's Bench Division held that the defendant was only allowed to adopt that position in relation to certain specific individuals but had to amend the defence in order to either admit or deny the allegations. 

Patent – Infringement. The first defendant owned a patent concerning an induction heating unit for hair rollers. Letters had been sent on behalf of the first and fourth defendants to the claimant and other companies, alleging infringement of the patent. In earlier proceedings, the claimant had successfully defended a claim, brought by the first defendant, for patent infringement. The Intellectual Property and Enterprise Court made an inquiry into damages and held, among other things, that the first and fourth defendants and were liable for losses, in the sum of £40,500, caused by the letters. The claimant was also entitled to interest.