Latest Cases

Commercial contract – Construction. Court of Session: Refusing an appeal which concerned the construction of the term 'unconditional written consent' in an asset sale agreement as used in a definition of 'Landlord's Consent' in the context of the assignation of a tenant's interest in a lease, the court the court rejected the submission that a condition affecting only the seller would not deprive landlord's consent of the character 'unconditional' as the term was used in the agreement, and concluded that 'Landlord's Consent', as defined by and referred to in the agreement, had not been either issued or granted. 

Practice – Service out of the jurisdiction. The second defendant company issued contempt proceedings against the director of the claimant companies. The director challenged the court's jurisdiction over him, and its previous orders for substituted and deemed service. The Commercial Court held that it was not open to hold that notice of the committal application could be served on the director under art 22 of Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001. However, it refused to set aside its previous orders, and granted permission for service of the notice and supporting documents on the director in Saudi Arabia with retrospective effect. 

Civil procedure – Pleadings. Sheriff Court: Refusing an appeal in an action in which a sheriff found the pursuer entitled to payment by the defenders of £25,500 under the terms of a contractual bonus scheme, the court held that the pleadings were not capable of the construction that the pursuer had admitted the variation of the contract averred by the defenders, and that the sheriff had not erred in finding that he had satisfactorily established the quantum of his loss to the required standard. 

Criminal evidence – Sufficiency of evidence. High Court of Justiciary: Refusing an appeal against a conviction for being concerned in the supplying of a controlled drug, the court held that there was, by the close of the Crown case, ample evidence to entitle the trial judge to repel a no case to answer submission by the appellant's counsel. 

Solicitor – Costs. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed the claimant company's claim for judicial review, holding that: the Legal Ombudsman had jurisdiction to entertain a complaint in relation to the quantum of fees contractually due; the complaint to the Ombudsman had not been out of time as time ran from the point at which an invoice was received; and the decision was not irrational. 

Arbitration – Appeal. An arbitration tribunal held that the claimant had breached a contract by failing to supply steel, as agreed, to the defendant and it awarded the defendant a sum in damages. The claimant appealed. The Commercial Court held that, on the facts, the claimant's challenges to the tribunal's jurisdiction and award failed, and its applications under ss 67 and 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 had to be dismissed. 

Prison – Release on licence. The claimants issued proceedings challenging the continuing failure of the defendant Secretary of State to make adequate provision for approved premises to accommodate women prisoners approaching the date on which they would be considered for release on licence. They contended that he had engaged in direct and indirect discrimination, and had breached the public sector equality duty. The Administrative Court held that the Secretary of State had not discriminated, directly or indirectly, in the performance of his functions of providing approved premises for women. However, he had not undertaken the analysis necessary to fulfil his equality duty. 

Court of Appeal – Practice. The claimant sought permission to appeal against the refusal of the Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) (the UT) to set aside its decision refusing to grant the claimant permission to appeal against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber). The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the application, held that there could be no appeal to the court from a refusal of the UT to review its decision to refuse permission to appeal. 

Medical practitioner – Negligence. The claimant's estate brought the proceedings, seeking damages for injury and loss said to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant's medical and midwifery staff. In particular, he contended that the negligence of a doctor, B, had caused the injuries in breach of duty. The Queen's Bench Division held that, on the evidence available to B, B had been entitled to proceed in the way that she had done without recourse to a more senior doctor, and had accordingly not been in breach of duty. 

Practice – Service out of jurisdiction. The claimant and defendants had entered into a collaboration agreement. The claimant was dissatisfied with another company that they were in a joint venture with and terminated the collaboration agreement. He issued a quantum meruit restitutionary claim against the defendants and was granted permission to serve out of the jurisdiction. The defendants successfully applied to have that order set aside. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the claimant did not have a realistic prospect of success and dismissed his appeal.