Latest Cases

Nursing – Nursing and Midwifery Council. The Administrative Court dismissed the appellant nurse's appeal against her erasure from the register. The respondent Nursing Midwifery Council's Fitness to Practise panel had not introduced a further charge of which the appellant had not had notice. Further, it had not failed to give adequate weight or credit to admissions made by the appellant and had not failed to take into account the mitigating features of the case. Nor had the panel been wrong to characterise the appellant as evasive. Finally, in the circumstances, the panel's decision to strike the appellant off the register had not been excessive or disproportionate. 

Contract – Construction. The Administrative Court ruled on the correct interpretation of a standard Dental Services Contract entered into by the claimant dentists and the defendant health board. 

Extradition – Extradition hearing. Seven appeals against extradition to Lithuania were heard together. The Divisional Court dismissed the appeals as the assurances given by the respondent judicial authority had not been unreliable and the appellants had fallen well short of showing that their human rights would be violated if extradited. 

Conflict of laws – Stay of proceedings. The Companies Court considered an application for a stay of proceedings by the defendant financial group. The proceedings concerned the transfer of shares in five Saudi Arabian companies. The claim was made on behalf of a company incorporated under the law of the Cayman Islands. In granting the stay, the court held that the courts of Saudi Arabia were clearly and distinctly a more appropriate forum. 

Personal injury – Damages. Court of Session: In an action for damages for a lower back injury the pursuer suffered after falling down a flight of stairs in the course of her employment, the court awarded total damages of £89,302, including £18,000 for solatium, £35,397 for past wage loss, £6,000 for future wage loss, and £4,400 (past) and £14,720 (future) for necessary services rendered to her by her daughter. 

Company – Member. The claimant presented a petition for relief from unfair prejudice under s 994 of the Companies Act 2006. In January 2013, the judge allowed the individual defendants' application to strike out the claimant's petition in part. The claimant appealed and the defendants cross-appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division held that the first allegation struck out could not properly be determined without hearing evidence and making findings of fact. Further, the claimant had not unreasonably refused an offer to buy out his shares making the petition an abuse of process. However, the claimant would be required to provide further particulars. 

Public authority – Operation of air and sea ports. The Chancery Division held that the authority had not had the authority to impose a ban which had prevented the claimants from using a port to export livestock on a vessel, the 'Joline'. The ban had been an unjustifiable breach of art 35 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the authority was liable to pay damages to the claimants. 

Income tax – Employment. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (the tribunal) ruled, amongst other things, on a taxpayer's application for judicial review of a decision of the Revenue and Customs Commissioners to refuse the taxpayer's application for relief pursuant to s 392 of the Income Tax (Earnings Pensions) Act 2003. 

Nuisance – Noise. In a case concerning private nuisance, the Supreme Court provided guidance on the following issues: (i) the extent, if any, to which it was open to a defendant to contend that he had established a prescriptive right to commit what would otherwise be a nuisance by means of noise; (ii) the extent, if any, to which a defendant to a nuisance claim could rely on the fact that the claimant 'came to the nuisance'; (iii) the extent, if any, to which it was open to a defendant to a nuisance claim to invoke the actual use of his premises, complained of by the claimant, when assessing the character of the locality; (iv) the extent, if any, to which the grant of planning permission for a particular use could affect the question of whether that use was a nuisance or any other use in the locality could be taken into account when considering the character of the locality; and (v) the approach to be adopted by a court when deciding whether to grant an injunction to restrain a nuisance being committed, or whether to award damages instead, and the relevance of planning permission to that issue. 

Patent – Infringement. The claimant was the patentee of a European patent for a tilting device for a seat back. The defendant manufactured a seat with a tilting back. The claimant issued proceedings against the defendant for patent infringement. The judge found that the defendant's seat did not infringe and the claimant appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the short answer to the claimant's point was that the language of the claim did not support its construction.