Latest Cases

Pleading – Striking out. The defendant sought to amend his defence and to rely on a supplementary witness statement, wholly at odds with the original defence. The claimants sought to strike out the defence. The Queen's Bench Division refused permission to rely on the supplementary witness statement and held that the proportionate response to the defendant's breaches was to strike out the defence. 

Solicitors – Solicitors Discipline Tribunal. Court of Session: In a sentence appeal against a penalty of immediate suspension from practice for 3 years imposed by a second, validly constituted, Solicitors' Discipline Tribunal, it having emerged that the chairman of an earlier tribunal, which imposed a penalty of restriction of the petitioner's practising certificate for 5 years, was not valid member of the tribunal, the court was not persuaded that the second tribunal's disposal should have been the same as, or more similar to, that adopted by the first, and held that the second tribunal reached a conclusion in relation to penalty which could not be criticised. 

Costs – Order for costs. The claimant issued libel proceedings against the defendants in respect of five tweets. He subsequently discontinued the claim. The first defendant sought indemnity costs and both defendants sought payment on account. The Queen's Bench Division ordered a portion of the first defendant's costs to be paid on the indemnity basis due to his unreasonable conduct. It further made orders for payment on account to both defendants. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. In a care case involving a mother with learning difficulties who had previously had a child placed for adoption, the Family Division made a care order in respect of a further child and a placement order authorising the local authority to place that child for adoption. 

Jury – Verdict. The defendant was convicted by majority of assault by penetration of the vagina, but acquitted of attempted rape and assault by anal penetration. He appealed against conviction. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that there was a clear and sensible explanation that rendered the verdicts consistent. Further, the conviction was not vitiated because the judge had given a direction in accordance with R v Watson ([1988] 1 All ER 897) at the same time as a majority direction. 

Contempt of court – Committal. WAJ was a vulnerable adult subject to proceedings in the Court of Protection. An injunction was granted preventing the respondent LW from contacting WAJ. The Family Division dismissed the application to commit LW to prison for breach of the injunction as, although a breach had been established, a year had passed since the breach had occurred and there were no subsequent allegations of breach. Guidance as to the proper approach when applying for committal in such circumstances was given. 

Town and Country Planning – Permission for development. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed the claimants' application for judicial review of the grant planning permission for a waste transfer station. The defendant local authority had not erred in law in its approach to screening the development under the regime for environmental impact assessment. Nor had the authority misapplied the relevant policy in the development plan when it determined the application for planning permission. 

Immigration – Asylum – Refusal of leave to appeal. Court of Session: Refusing a petition for judicial review of a decision of the Upper Tribunal (UT) refusing the petitioner permission to appeal against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal, the court held that there was no error of law in the UT's decision, and even if that was wrong, applying the relevant test the court did not have jurisdiction to consider the lawfulness of the decision under review. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant's extradition to Poland was ordered to serve a sentence 150 days' imprisonment for possession of cannabis. He had been remanded in custody for approximately seven months in the United Kingdom. The respondent accepted that it was arguable that the time he had served in custody exceeded the term for which extradition was sought and did not resist the appeal, but offered undertakings. The Administrative Court, in allowing the appeal, held that that was the right solution to the problem and there was no force to the submission that there should be a declaration that the continued existence of the warrant was an abuse of process. 

Restraint of trade by agreement – Employer and employee. The first defendant left the claimant recruitment company to work for the second defendant recruitment company. The Queen's Bench Division allowed the claimant's claim for damages arising from the breach of restrictive covenants contained in the first defendant's contract. The restrictions had, subject to severing one phrase from two of the restrictions, been legally enforceable, the first defendant had been in breach and the second defendant had procured those breaches.