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. 

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. 

Sentence – Confiscation order. The defendant had satisfied a confiscation order against him under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. Over six years later, the judge imposed a further confiscation order. The defendant appealed. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the judge had taken an unexceptional approach to the case and that the further confiscation order had been neither wrong nor manifestly excessive. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

Civil procedure – Contempt. Sheriff Court: In proceedings to determine whether two social workers in the Children's and Families Department of the City of Edinburgh Council were in contempt of court, the court found that the social workers had failed to obtemper the court's interlocutors of 24 May 2013 by not making two children available for contact with their mother from 11 July until 23 August 2013, and that in those circumstances they were guilty of a contempt of the court's authority. 

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. 

Medical practitioner – Duty of care. The claimant sought damages for negligence following the death of his wife in the hospital for which the defendant NHS Trust was responsible. He contended that her death would have been prevented had her peripheral leg pulses been tested by palpation. The Queen's Bench Division, in dismissing the claim, preferred the evidence of the defendant's expert. On that evidence, the claimant had not established a breach of duty by the doctor. Further, it was highly speculative that, had the doctor palpated the deceased's peripheral pulses, life-saving surgery would have been performed on time. 

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.