Latest Cases

Solicitor – Billing. In order for a bill to be a 'statute bill' and comply with the Solicitors Act 1974 it did not need to encompass both profit costs and disbursements. Accordingly the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the solicitor's appeal in respect of cost bills rendered to the respondent clients.

European Union – Community institutions. Council Decision (EU, Euratom) (authorising the opening of negotiations with the UK for an agreement setting out the arrangements for the UK's withdrawal from the EU) which did not produce binding legal effects capable of affecting the interests of the applicants by bringing about a distinct change in their legal position, could not be the subject of an action for annulment. Further, the applicants, who were not directly concerned by the contested decision, did not have standing to bring proceedings pursuant to the fourth paragraph of art 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Consequently, the Court of Justice of the European Union dismissed the applicants' application, pursuant to art 263 TFEU, for annulment of that decision.

Company – Unfair prejudice. The petitioner's unfair prejudice petition under s 994 of the Companies Act 2006, against three of her deceased husband's relatives and the fourth respondent family-run company, failed. The petitioner had argued that, following the death of her husband, the company's former operating director, she and her son had been excluded from the company in alleged breach of an understanding between the shareholders, and that a transfer made by the company amounted to unfairly prejudicial conduct. The Companies Court ruled that, in the context of a small family company, all the relevant members had given their informed assent to the transfer, that the petitioner had not suffered unfairness as a result of it, and that there was no evidence of the claimed fundamental understanding. Further, the court ruled that where, since the presentation of the petition, the petitioner had been registered as a shareholder of the company and there had been an offer to change the company's new articles of association to reflect the original articles in respect of the right to bequeath shares to family members, any unfairness had been remedied and the probability of unfair prejudicial conduct in the future was too minimal to grant relief.

Immigration – European Union Treaty. There was no coherent policy rationale why the derived right of facilitation under European Union Law sought to be relied on by the respondent, should be limited to cases in which the third country national who was a 'durable partner' had made an application to the immigration authorities of the relationship Member State. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, accordingly dismissed the Secretary of State's appeal and obliged her to reconsider the respondent's application for a residence card taking the derived right of facilitation into account.

Pension – Pension scheme. The decision to implement an extension of the provision of full indexation of the guaranteed minimum pension payable to all members of public service pension schemes who reached state pension age between December 2018 and April 2021 had not been arbitrary, disproportionate, irrational or inadequately reasoned. The Divisional Court, in dismissing BT's application for judicial review, further rejected its contention that the option of amending the rules of the principal civil service pension scheme would not interfere with specified members' property rights.

Immigration – Asylum. The re-detention of foreign criminals subject to a deportation order and on immigration bail, for the purposes of their attending an interview with Nigerian officials at a detention centre to secure emergency travel documentation and thus facilitate their removal was lawful. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division accordingly allowed the Secretary of State's appeal and dismissed A's appeal.

Medical practitioner – Disciplinary proceedings. The failure to cross-examine the appellant consultant orthopaedic surgeon comprehensively on an allegation of sexually motivated misconduct had been procedurally unfair. The Administrative Court, in allowing the appellant's appeal, further held that there had been virtually no evidential foundation, nor had there been any clear or sufficient reasoning, for the finding that there had been sexual motivation by the appellant's use of the word 'pretty' at consultations.

Criminal evidence and procedure – Previous convictions – Evidence of own good character. High Court of Justiciary: Refusing an appeal by an appellant who was convicted of 11 historic charges involving sexual offences against fellow pupils, the appeal relating to the trial judge's decision to grant a Crown motion allowing evidence that the appellant had previous convictions to be placed before the jury after he made a false statement in cross-examination that he had never been in court, the court held that the trial judge was correct to interpret the statement as evidence of the appellant's own good character, and he had properly exercised his discretion to allow the fact that the appellant had prior convictions to be placed before the court.

Sentencing – Child pornography – Extended sentence. High Court of Justiciary: Refusing an appeal by an appellant who pled guilty to charges of possessing and distributing indecent images of children and on whom the sheriff imposed a sentence of 12 months' imprisonment on the possession charge and an extended sentence of 37 months on the distribution charge, the court rejected a contention that an extended sentence was not appropriate as distribution of images fell outwith the category where a finding of risk of serious harm to the public could be made; given the risk assessment and material in the Criminal Justice Social Work Reports suggesting an intensifying pattern of offending by the appellant the sheriff was entitled to reach the conclusion that he did; there was a sufficiently established connection between the appellant's offending and the risk to the public.

Immigration – Judicial review – Leave to remain – Refusal of leave to appeal – Second appeals test. Court of Session: Refusing a reclaiming motion in a judicial review petition by a family of Bangladeshi nationals seeking reduction of the Upper Tribunal's refusal of leave to appeal against the First Tier Tribunal (FTT)'s dismissal of their appeal against refusal of their application for leave to remain, the focus of the petition being the third petitioner, a child born in 2008, and the question for the FTT being whether it was reasonable to expect her to leave the UK, the court held that the Lord Ordinary had not erred in his approach to the substantial merits of the case; specifically in relation to his interpretation of para 276ADE(1) of the Immigration Rules and s 117B of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, and he was correct to conclude that the second appeals test only applied at the stage of granting permission to proceed.