Latest Cases

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The claimant was a regulated mutual fund it sought to purchase a site and develop it by a team supplied by the defendants. The claimant entered into a contract for the purchase of the site, planning consent for which had been given in principle for the development of the 155 flats together with 171 parking places. It was a term of the contract that if planning permission was not granted by 31 December 2006, either party would be entitled to rescind the contract and the deposit would be repaid to the claimant with interest. The claimant brought an action in contract and tort against the defendants. The Technology and Construction Court refused largely to strike out the claim on the basis that it was not fanciful and it could not be determined on a summary application whether the claimants claim was stature barred. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The defendant local authority granted the interested party planning permission with conditions attached. The judge quashed that decision on the basis that the grant of planning permission and the imposition of conditions had been inconsistent. The local authority and the interested party appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the appeal, held that there had been no inconsistency between the two positions adopted by the authority. Further, the authority had been in the position to properly assess the likely effect of the development and it had considered all relevant environmental effects. 

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. 

Town and country planning – Planning authority. An inspector for the Secretary of State approved the defendant local authority's core strategy for 56 new dwellings to a village out of 226 for the locality. The claimant challenged the core strategy. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the inspector had not erred in law in concluding that the core strategy had been sound and that his decision had not been Wednesbury unreasonable. Further, the challenge to the adequacy of the inspector's reasons had not been made out. 

Damages – Measure of damages. The claimant's husband (the deceased) had suffered from, inter alia, pulmonary hypertension caused by chronic pulmonary emboli. Prior to his death, the deceased had consulted the defendant doctor on a number of occasions with regard to his health condition. The deceased had been concerned over the quality of advice received by the defendant and commenced proceedings against him, which were continued after the deceased's death by the claimant. Subsequent to proceedings being issued, the defendant had admitted liability that his discounting of a diagnosis of pulmonary embolism and the consequential failure to prescribe Warfarin amounted to clinical negligence by him. The instant case concerned the award of damages to the claimant. The Queen's Bench Division awarded sums of compensation for general damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenities, bereavement, loss of earnings, and the cost of two consultations the deceased had paid to the defendant. The total amount awarded exceeded £16550 with interest. 

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. 

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.