Latest Cases

Civil procedure – Summary decree: Sheriff Court: Refusing an apppeal in an action for payment of solicitors' fees against a sheriff's interlocutor granting a motion for summary decree dismissing defender's counterclaim, the court held that the sheriff had been correct to conclude that the counterclaim had no real of prospect of success and summary decree dismissing it was the just and correct disposal. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The defendant Secretary of State ordered the claimant British national's extradition to the interested party United States of America to stand trial for alleged offences. The claimant was diagnosed as suffering from schizophrenia and detained in a psychiatric hospital. The European Court of Human Rights ruled that, in view of the severity of the claimant's mental condition, there would be a violation of his rights under art 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights if he was extradited. On the basis of further information provided by the US, the Secretary of State decided not to withdraw the extradition order. The claimant sought judicial review of that decision. Allowing the application, the Administrative Court held that the further information had added nothing material to the information which the Strasbourg court had had, so that it had been impermissible to depart from its conclusion that there would be a violation of art 3 of the Convention if the claimant was extradited to the US. 

National health service – General medical services. The claimants ran a general practitioner medical practice. They issued proceedings against a primary care trust for breach of a contract, giving them health service body status, which had been varied. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the variation agreement had not needed to mention the claimants' health service body status, as the original agreement had. Accordingly, the variation agreement had been an NHS contract and the claimants had had no legally enforceable rights by virtue of s 9(5) of the National Health Service Act 2006. Further, it allowed the defendant's application to amend to seek a strike out of the proceedings, as the claimants would not be prejudiced and, on the basis of its findings, struck out the proceedings. 

Education – Local education authority. The appellant mother had sought to change the special school specified by the respondent local authority in her son's statement of special educational needs. Her appeals had been dismissed by both the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) and the Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber). The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed her appeal and held that s 9 of the Education Act 1996 had been engaged by virtue of s 324(4)(b) of the same Act where, in principle, it was difficult to see why there should be a difference with regard to the applicability of s 324(4), and therefore also of s 9, between para 3 of Sch 27 to the Act and para 8 of Sch 27. 

Licensing – Club. The Administrative Court considered two challenges to a local authority's decision not to grant licences to lap-dancing clubs. The court held that, among other things, the decisions had been legitimately taken and proper reasons for them had been given. 

Shipping – Charterparty. Under a time charterparty, the owner had chartered its vessel to the charterer. The owner brought arbitration proceedings seeking withheld hire in respect of a period when the vessel had been detained subject to an arrest order. The arbitrators dismissed the owner's claim and the owner appealed to the High Court. The judge held that the arbitrators had erred in their decision that the arrest of the vessel in question had not fallen within the proviso to the 'off-hire clause' contained in the charterparty. In the light of the court's ruling that the proviso in that clause had applied, the question of causation was remitted to the tribunal to determine. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, upheld the judge's decision, albeit on a different construction of the proviso to the off-hire clause, and determined that the judge had been correct to remit the question of causation. 

Contract – Construction. The buyer and the seller entered into a transaction for the sale of a business. An element of deferred consideration was agreed between them. A dispute arose regarding the calculation of the deferred consideration amount. The Commercial Court, in a situation where there was no substantial dispute between the parties as to the principles, held, on the facts, that the buyer was entitled to a declaration regarding the investment amount and the seller on its counterclaim was entitled to a declaration regarding the on-sale of the business. 

Extradition – Extradition hearing. The appellant Spanish national was accused of involvement in a conspiracy to launder money which was the proceeds of crime. The respondent judicial authority sought her extradition pursuant to a European arrest warrant. The district judge ordered the appellant's extradition and she appealed. Allowing the appeal, the Administrative Court held that, in the circumstances, the opinions of an expert psychologist should not have been discounted in the way that they had been by the judge. In the instant case, the likely damage to two of the appellant's children had been such that the extradition of the appellant would have amounted to a disproportionate interference with their rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Company – Shares in company. The issue was whether the defendants were liable to reimburse the claimant in respect of a payment it had made for the payment up of shares in a company, which the parties had acquired for a joint venture. The claimant contended that the defendants were so liable under the terms of an agreement for the financing of the joint venture. The Companies Court held that the defendants were liable to reimburse the claimant as contended. The claimant's contractual right to be reimbursed had not been waived or otherwise affected by a subsequent compromise agreement between the parties. 

Immigration – Asylum – Refusal of leave to appeal. Court of Session: Granting a petition for judicial review of a decision of the Upper Tribunal (UT) refusing the petitioner leave to appeal against a decision of the First Tier Tribunal, the court held that the immigration judge's approach to the assessment of the best interests of the petitioner's child raised an important point of principle or practice, and the UT judge's decision that there was 'no arguable legal error' was manifestly bad.