Latest Cases

Criminal evidence – Admissibility of evidence – Judge's direction. High Court of Justiciary: Refusing appeals against conviction by two appellants who were found guilty of charges of murder and attempting to defeat the ends of justice, the court rejected contentions that the trial judge had erred in eliciting prejudicial and irrelevant evidence from a police witness and that he had misdirected the jury in relation to the concept of an 'accessory after the fact'. 

Shipping – Bill of lading. In the course of a shipping dispute, the Commercial Court considered the meaning of cl 8 of the GAFTA 49 contract. It held that, on the evidence, there was no sound basis for departing from the view that where a timely notice was served, there was an unqualified right of extension under cl 8 of GAFTA 49. 

Practice – Administrative Court. The appellant, biomedical scientist (BMS), was suspended by the respondent regulatory body the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC). A panel of the Conduct and Competence Committee (CCC) of the HCPC (the panel) found that he had fallen significantly below the basic level practice across all areas of clinical bench work in the laboratory, time management and health and safety over a considerable period of time. The panel imposed a sanction of suspension. The appellant appealed. The Administrative Court held that in all the circumstances, it would be unfair and disproportionate to strike the appellant off and the sanction of suspension had been one which had been open to the panel in the light of its findings. 

Judicial review – Application for judicial review. The claimant sought an extension of time to seek judicial review of the issue of a search warrant on the ground that he had only become aware that his grounds to challenge the decision when he had discovered R (on the application of Vuciterni and another) v Brent Magistrates' Court and another ([2012] All ER (D) 323 (Jul)) (Vuciterni). The Divisional Court, in dismissing the application, held that the claimant had known about the Vuciterni judicial review during his police interview and his misleading assertion to the contrary disqualified him from a decision to extend time to file his claim. 

National Health Service – General medical services. The defendants were dentists who had provided dental services to the claimant NHS commission under arrangements made between then and the Primary Care Trusts (the PCT's). The claimant was the statutory predecessor to the PCT's. At the time those arrangements had been made, the defendants were regarded as health service bodies and therefore the arrangements between them and the PCT's were NHS's contracts under s 9 of the National Health Service Act 2006 (the 2006 Act). The claimants sought redress under the 2006 Act. The defendants disputed the claims on the basis that the claimant could, and should have, pursued its remedies under the statutory scheme in respect of breaches of the arrangements which were alleged to have taken place while the arrangements were still NHS contracts, and could not now remedy that omission by suing in the ordinary courts for sums allegedly due under or in respect of the arrangements. The Queen's Bench Division struck out the claimant's case on the basis of s 9 of the National Health Service Act 2006 (the 2006 Act). 

Immigration – Asylum seeker. The applicants were a father and his school age daughter who had left Iran to seek asylum. They had passed through France on their way to the United Kingdom. The Secretary of State issued removal directions as France had formally accepted responsibility for dealing with their asylum claims. The applicants contended that removal would be a breach of their rights as the daughter would be unable to attend public school as she wore a cover in accordance with her Muslim beliefs. The Secretary of State confirmed her earlier decision. The applicants' claim for judicial review failed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that removal would not constitute a flagrant violation of the applicants' rights under arts 8 or 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights and they had not rebutted the presumption that France would comply with its Convention obligations. Further, the removal decision had not breached s 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009. 

Negligence – Remoteness of damage. The proceedings arose from oil spillages in Nigeria, for which the defendant company had admitted liability. The claimants were a large number of people living on land damaged or otherwise affected by the spillages. The Technology and Construction Court made findings on a number of preliminary issues. 

Immigration – Appeal. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in considering the most recent country guidance on Sri Lanka (GJ and Others (post-civil war: returnees)[2013] UKUT 00319 (IAC)) held that that guidance had not been vitiated by material legal error. 

Estoppel – Proprietary estoppel. The Chancery Division, in allowing the claimant's action to enforce his parent's promise that he would inherit property, held that the correct characterisation of the case was of a constructive trust arising by virtue of a proprietary estoppel. The claimant had relied on their promise to his detriment and, accordingly, equity required that he be awarded the entire beneficial interest in the property. 

Sentence – Murder. The defendants appealed against their sentences of life imprisonment for murder, with a specified minimum term of 40 years and concurrent sentences of 15 years' imprisonment for each of two counts of attempted murder. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the judge had correctly identified the aggravating factors. Accordingly, the length of the minimum term had rightly reflected the entire criminality of the defendants' conduct.