Latest Cases

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The husband maintained that the wife was debarred from proceeding by virtue of an agreement to mediate made in November 2011. The wife disputed that. She maintained that the court could not force or coerce her to mediate, whatever she might have agreed. Following consideration of alternative dispute resolution in the civil field and ADR in the family sphere (FDR) as governed by the Family Procedure Rules 2010, the Family Division held that the parties remained bound by their agreement to mediate, however, it could not be given effect so as to prevent the wife from applying for enforcement until and unless mediation had taken place. A bar of that nature would operate as a restriction on the right to apply to the court. The most that could be done in balancing the obligation to mediate under the agreement and the right of access to justice was for an adjournment to be ordered for a specified period to give the parties a final opportunity to engage in ADR. 

Company – Scheme of arrangement. The Companies Court considered a scheme of arrangement, by which the applicant companies would merge by absorption. The merging companies were part of the same group and shared the same parent company. The court held that the scheme would be approved. 

Sentence – Consecutive sentences. The claimant issued proceedings against the Ministry of Justice for failing to release him on home detention curfew (HDC). The Queen's Bench Division held that the prison had owed the claimant a duty of care after calculating that he had been long past his HDC eligibility date and it had fallen well short of that duty in not according his HDC application the required priority. Accordingly, he was entitled to damages for six weeks' detention. However, his claims for false imprisonment, trespass to the person, misfeasance in public office and breach of the Human Rights Act 1998 failed. 

Town and country planning – Planning authority. The defendant local authority designated a neighbourhood area for the claimant neighbourhood forum less than it had sought. The judge dismissed the claimant's application for judicial review and it appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the discretion conferred by s 61G(5) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to decide what was an appropriate area to be designated as a neighbourhood area was not confined to a discretion to decide within which neighbourhood area any given site was to be included. 

Prisoner – Human rights – Rehabilitation. Court of Session: In judicial review proceedings by a post-tariff life prisoner, alleging that the Scottish Ministers had failed to provide him with a real opportunity for rehabilitation, thus rendering him unable to satisfy the Parole Board of his suitability for release, the court made a provisional finding that there had been a breach of art 5(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights, rejected the respondents' contentions that the action was time-barred under s100(3B) of the Scotland Act, or barred by mora, taciturnity and acquiescence, and appointed the petition to call by Order to hear submissions on the scope of a second hearing. 

Club – Registered club. In the course of a dispute about the management of a working men's club, the claimant sought orders, including as to the validity of a meeting electing club officers. The judge held the meeting was valid, despite failure to comply with the club rules. The Court of Appeal, in allowing the appeal, held that the meeting had not been validly convened and the business purportedly transacted at it had been ineffective, as the irregularities had not been mere matters of form. 

Housing – Homeless person. The claimant refused the defendant local authority's offer of accommodation and made further representations on review as to her confusion about the process. The reviewing officer upheld the original decision and the judge dismissed the claimant's appeal. The claimant appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the appeal, held that the claimant's case as to confusion struck at the heart of the fairness of the procedure. Accordingly, the review decision would be quashed on the basis that a 'minded to find' notice under reg 8(2)(b) of the Allocation of Homelessness (Review Procedures) Regulations 1999, SI 1999/71 ought to have been served. 

Practice – Preliminary point of law. In the course of proceedings, the defendant companies made an application for an issue of ex turpi causa to be determined as a preliminary issue. The Chancery Division, in dismissing the application, held that, in all the circumstances, it would not be just and would not serve the overriding objective to order the issue of ex turpi causa to be tried as a preliminary issue. 

Negligence – Duty to take care. The claimants were both victims of the 'black cab rapist'. They brought complaints against the police for the manner in which they had handled their specific allegations and the conduct of the investigation as a whole. The claims were brought under the Human Rights Act 1998. The Queen's Bench Division held that there was, in certain circumstances, a duty imposed upon the police to conduct investigations into particularly severe violent acts perpetrated by private parties in a timely and efficient manner. The conditions laid down in law pursuant to which the police might be liable were relatively stringent, however in the instant case those conditions had been met. 

Damages – Personal injury. The claimant sustained an injury whilst working in a hospice run by the defendant National Health Service Trust. The injury worsened to the point where the claimant had to give up work. The claimant brought an action in personal injury against the defendant for damages. The defendant did not deny the accident but denied that the accident had caused the severity of the claimant's injuries. It suggested that the claimant was a malingerer or unduly weak. The Queen's Bench Division held that the claimant's injuries were genuine and she was entitled to a total award of £765,992.