Latest Cases

Minor – Abduction. The Supreme Court held that the courts might, in making a determination of habitual residence in relation to an adolescent child who had resided in a place under the care of one of her parents, have regard to her own state of mind during her period of residence there in relation to the nature and quality of that residence. Further, the child should have been granted party status in the proceedings and that the Court of Appeal should have allowed her appeal against the judge's refusal of it. 

Contempt of court – Committal. The Family Division dismissed an application by the applicant mother for the respondent father to be committed to prison for contempt of court for a further period for his breach of a range of orders requiring him to reveal the whereabouts of the child in Egypt and to procure her return to England. There was no evidence that the father had committed any criminal offence under the law of England and Wales, and at the time of the instant hearing the father had served the equivalent of twice the maximum term for contempt of court provided for by s 14 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981. In those circumstances, it would not be proportionate or justifiable, nor, therefore, lawful, to commit the father to a yet further term of imprisonment. 

Evidence – Interception of communications. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, dismissed an appeal against conviction by two defendants, holding that the trial judge had not erred in admitting evidence of telephone conversations from prison which had been intercepted and recorded as a result of the prison's general blanket policy. That policy had not constituted a breach of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. Further, in the instant case proper authority had been given for the interception and recording of telephone calls at the prison; and the application process requesting the retention and use of the relevant material had been properly followed. Finally, the Crown had not failed in its duties of disclosure to a degree that had deprived the second defendant of a fair trial. 

Parent and child – International child abduction. Court of Session: Refusing a father's petition for an order for the return to France of his two sons, aged 14 and 10, who had been brought to and wrongfully retained in Scotland by their mother, the court, having held that the children were settled in their new environment and objected to being returned, decided to exercise its discretion in favour of refusing to make an order returning them to France. 

Mortgage – Action by mortgagee for possession. The claimant bank made an order for possession of the house of the second defendant, G. Her son, LG, had taken on the responsibility for making payments on the mortgage, but had taken out additional charges and had failed to meet payments. The Chancery Division held that the position of the bank had not been adversely affected by whatever had happened between LG and G, and that, therefore, it would be inappropriate to do anything other than to make an order for possession. 

Criminal evidence – Sufficiency of evidence. High Court of Justiciary: In an appeal by an appellant who was found guilty of a sub-head of a charge of conspiracy (which was found not proven) relating to the transfer of money for the purposes of terrorism the court rejected two grounds of appeal, one directed at the sufficiency of the evidence relating to the sub-head as a stand-alone charge and whether the trial judge misdirected the jury in that respect, and the other directed at the appropriateness/adequacy of the manner in which the trial judge and the Crown dealt with the evidence of the appellant's brother. 

Criminal evidence – Admissibility of evidence. High Court of Justiciary: Allowing an appeal by an appellant who was charged with an offence under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and whose objection to the admissibility of the results of a search of a vehicle driven by him was repelled, the court held that the officers who detained the appellant and searched the vehicle, whilst purporting to act under s 23 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, did not have reasonable grounds to suspect that he was in possession of a controlled drug. 

Injunction – Interim injunction. The claimant company brought proceedings against the defendant company alleging infringement of the claimant's patent concerning a method of making a herbicide used in agriculture. The Chancery Division, Patents Court, granted the claimant an interim injunction to restrain the defendant company from selling its product in UK pending the trial. 

Disclosure and inspection of documents – Production of documents. Following trial in a patents case, the claimant company made an application for disclosure of documents allegedly known to B, a former employee of the second defendant company, who at the instant time worked for the claimant, but had formerly been prevented from disclosing the documents by confidentiality agreements. The Patents Court held that it would be proportionate to allow disclosure, limited to be material gathered by B. 

Immigration – Asylum. Court of Session: Granting a reclaiming motion by a failed Malawian asylum seeker whose petition challenging decisions not to treat his further submissions as a fresh claim was refused by the Lord Ordinary, the court concluded that it could not be satisfied that the respondent had addressed the up-to-date country of origin information report and its significance to the particular circumstances and best interests of the petitioner's children, and that therefore the Lord Ordinary had erred in holding that the respondent had not left any relevant and material issue out of account.