Latest Cases

Gaming – Lottery. Regulation 4 of the Gambling Act 2005 (Operating Licence Conditions) Regulations 2007, SI 2007/2257, which extended the prohibition on gambling on the outcome of the National Lottery, was not prohibited by art 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The Divisional Court held that, although reg 4 amounted to a restriction on the freedom to provide services, the defendant Secretary of State's justifications were valid and no lesser measure would have been equally effective.

Landlord and tenant – Assignment of lease. The judge had not erred in holding, among other things, that the first appellant tenant had parted with possession of the flat, in breach of covenant owed to the respondent landlord, when the contract to assign the flat to the second appellant RTM Company director had been completed. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the appellant's appeal.

Criminal law – Criminal Cases Review Commission. There was absolutely no basis for concluding that the defendant Criminal Cases Review Commission had been irrational in reaching the view that there was no sensible basis on which the claimant's murder conviction should be regarded as unsafe, let alone constituting substantial injustice. Accordingly, the Divisional Court dismissed the claimant's application for judicial review of the decision not to refer his conviction for murder to the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division.

Sentence – Hospital order. The appellant's appeal against a decision of the Court of Appeal failed, in proceedings concerning the detention of the appellant under a hospital order under s 37 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (the MHA 1983) and a restriction order under the MHA 1983 s 41. The Supreme Court held that the MHA 1983 did not permit either the First Tier Tribunal or the Secretary of State to impose conditions amounting to detention or a deprivation of liberty within the meaning of art 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights upon a conditionally discharged restricted patient.

Insurance – Insurance business transfer scheme. The Society of Lloyd's and Lloyd's Insurance Company SA succeeded in their claim for an order sanctioning an insurance business transfer scheme, proposed in response to Brexit. The Companies Court held, among other things, that the scheme had no feature which rendered it obviously incapable of satisfying any criterion, established by statute or by the authorities, as needing to be fulfilled before it could be sanctioned. The court ruled that it was prepared to make an order, the terms of which might vary slightly from the terms of the draft order put forward by the parties.

Human rights – Right to liberty and prohibition against discrimination based on 'other status'. The appellant prisoner, who had been sentenced to an extended determinate sentence (EDS) for ten counts of rape, under s 226A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, had been treated differently on the grounds of 'other status', within the meaning of art 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights. However, the Supreme Court, in dismissing the appellant's appeal, ruled that the aim of the EDS provisions was legitimate and that there was an objective justification for the difference in treatment of EDS prisoners, who were eligible for parole at a later stage than other categories of prisoners serving determinate sentences. Accordingly, there had been no breach of art 14 (taken with art 5) of the Convention. In so ruling, the court departed from the decision in R (on the application of Clift) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; R (on the application of Hindawi and another) v Secretary of State for the Home Department[2007] 2 All ER 1, which had ruled that a term of imprisonment could not amount to 'other status', within art 14 of the Convention.

Solicitor – Dishonesty. In concluding that there had been exceptional circumstances, in part because of mental health issues, justifying a lesser sanction than striking off the roll for dishonesty, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal had both erred in principle and had been wrong, in the sense that it had made evaluative decisions which were outside the bounds of what it could properly and reasonably decide. The Divisional Court, in allowing the Solicitors Regulation Authority's appeal, held that the sanction of suspended suspension had to be quashed and substituted by striking off the roll, as it had been unduly lenient and clearly inappropriate.

Judicial review – Procedure – Time bar. Court of Session: Refusing a judicial review petition by a petitioner who was convicted, inter alia, of offences relating to aiding or compelling prostitution and keeping or management of a brothel, and who sought reduction of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission's decision not to refer her case to the High Court, the court held that the judicial review was time barred because it was not brought within the time limits specified in s 27A(1)(a) of the Court of Session Act 1988 and that, in the circumstances of the petitioner's case, it was not equitable to extend the 3-month period under s 27A(1)(b).

Medical practitioner – Professional conduct – Fitness to practise – Disciplinary sanction. Court of Session: Refusing an appeal by the General Medical Council ('GMC') against a decision of the Medical Practitioners Tribunal to impose no disciplinary sanction on a doctor in respect of a finding that his fitness to practice was impaired because of inappropriate and sexually motivated conduct towards a junior doctor, the court rejected contentions that the tribunal had failed to give proper effect to the GMC's Sanctions Guidance and that its decision was not sufficient for the protection of the public, and could find no legitimate basis for concluding that the Tribunal was not entitled to reach the decision which it did.

Civil procedure – Limitation of actions – Prescription. Court of Session: Refusing an appeal in an action in which the pursuer averred a breach of contract, being the defenders' early termination and demand for repayment of three term loans, the court held that the sheriff had not erred in law in holding that any obligation to make reparation in respect of the alleged breach had prescribed under s 6 of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973.