Latest Cases

Local government – Community council – Personal injury action. Court of Session: In an action for damages for personal injury, brought by an individual who sustained a neck fracture after falling when descending a flight of steps and claimed a community council was jointly responsible for the poor condition of the steps, in which the issue was whether a community council could be sued for damages for personal injuries, the court held that community councils were hybrid bodies that could be sued in their own name.

Construction contract – Adjudication – Enforcement of award – Adjudicator's jurisdiction. Sheriff Court: Granting decree against the defender in an action in which the pursuer sought to enforce an adjudicator's decision and the defender challenged the adjudicator's jurisdiction, the court rejected contentions that the adjudicator lacked jurisdiction because a claim of sufficient clarity and precision was not referred to adjudication, and that the pursuer had referred multiple disputes to adjudication without the defender's consent: it therefore held that the adjudicator did not fall into jurisdictional error and his decision was not unenforceable on that account.

Extradition – Unjust and oppressive. The judge had not erred in finding that it would not be unjust or oppressive to extradite the appellant by reason of the passage of time since he was alleged to have committed the extradition offence or that the appellant's extradition was not a disproportionate interference in his and his family's rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Accordingly, the Administrative Court dismissed the appellant's appeal against orders for his extradition to Croatia to be prosecuted in respect of allegations of dishonesty.

Appeal – Evidence. The appellant's appeal against the decision of the County Court at Central London to dismiss her claim for damages and declaratory relief, arising out of her arrest, charge and prosecution for an offence of harassment pursuant to section 2 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, was dismissed. The Queens' Bench Division found that the judge had been entitled to find on the evidence that the appellant's arrest had been lawful. There had been no arguable breach of the appellant's Article 10 ECHR rights when she had been arrested, nor had there been any actionable assault.

Sewer – Discharge of effluent into. A mixed liquid fell within the definition of trade effluent in s 141(1) of the Water Industry Act 1991. It was to be treated as a single mixture, and not separated into what had been its former parts. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed Boots UK Ltd's appeal against the lower court's ruling that the respondent water and sewerage services company had been entitled to levy metered charges on the whole of the mixed liquid in question, which included trade effluent from Boots UK Ltd's factory and surface water.

Mental health – Persons who lack capacity. The Court of Protection made rulings on the care of the first respondent, a vulnerable young woman with Autistic Spectrum Disorder. The court gave permission for the first respondent to be assessed by a female clinical psychologist and emphasised that cases that could necessitate restrictions in areas where adults had capacity needed to be heard by High Court Judges in the Court of Protection.

Building – Defect. The claimant construction company's application for five declarations succeeded only in part, in a dispute concerning the construction of two blocks of student residences in Plymouth. The Technology and Construction Court held that the first to fourth declarations would not be made out, but that the fifth declaration, namely that one or more rooms in the property had been constructed so as to be less than 3% smaller than the size specified, succeeded.

Extradition – European arrest warrant. The European arrest warrant, seeking the appellant's extradition to Italy to face trial for kidnapping, had been adequate. The Divisional Court dismissed the appellant's appeal, as the dates and location of offending were identified, and the ransom sum was particularised.

Admiralty – Arrest of vessel. The appellant shipowners' appeal against a judgment dismissing their appeal to release a ship from arrest failed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the judge at first instance had not erred in exercising his discretion to dismiss the application to release the ship from arrest unless the respondent bank provided a cross-undertaking in damages for the loss flowing from the arrest.

Sentence – Fine. The defendant company's appeal against a fine imposed in respect of the death of its employee, who had been knocked from a scissor lift at the entrance to the defendant's site, was allowed in part. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that, although the judge had taken the correct sentencing approach with regard to the size of the fine, the impact of the sentence would be restructured by allowing more time for the defendant to pay. Accordingly, the court extended the period within which the defendant had to complete payment of the fine of £120,000, from 2 years to 4 years.