Latest Cases

European Union – Directives. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art 11(1), read in conjunction with arts 5, 7 and 13, of Directive (EC) 2005/60, as amended by Directive 2010/78/EU. The request had been made in proceedings between Safe Interenvíos SA (Safe), a payment institution, and three credit institutions, concerning the closure by those credit institutions of the accounts held by Safe because they had suspected money laundering. 

Criminal procedure – Disclosure – Prosecutor's duty to disclose information. Sheriff Court: In applications to the court for a ruling on disclosure by three accused who had pled not guilty to a summary complaint containing 16 charges mostly alleging contraventions of road traffic and regulatory legislation relevant to dealing in motor vehicles, the court concluded that a substantial amount of information sought by the defence was within the scope of the prosecutor's duty to disclose information. 

Education – School closure. Sheriff Court: Dismissing an appeal by an education authority against a decision of the School Closure Review Panel, refusing to consent to the authority's proposal to close four primary schools in North West Skye, the court held that the panel had not erred in law in finding that the appellant had failed in a significant regard to have special regard to the rural factors set out in s 12 of the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010. 

Criminal evidence and procedure – Setting aside acquittal – New prosecution –Alleged admissions. High Court of Justiciary: In an application by the Crown to set aside an acquittal and grant authority to bring a new prosecution, relying on alleged admissions made or becoming known after the date of acquittal, the respondent having stood trial for murder in 1992 and jury having found the charge against him not proven, the court held that the statements relied on could not reasonably and fairly be construed as admissions, except for a statement made to a prison officer, however that statement was inadmissible and accordingly the application must fail. 

Costs – Order for costs. The Queen's Bench Division ruled on liability for costs, pursuant to CPR 36.13(5), following the claimant's acceptance in February 2016 of the defendant NHS trust's CPR Pt 36 offer, which offer had, in fact, expired in June 2015, it having been made earlier that month. 

Agriculture – EU financial assistance – Damages for breach of community law. Court of Session: In an action in which the pursuers sought reparation for loss and damage said to have been caused by the defenders' breach of community law occasioned by the Rural Payments Agency, acting on the defenders' behalf, withdrawing the first pursuer's recognition as a producer organisation (PO) under the EU's Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Scheme, the court held that the second to 21st pursuers, as members of a PO, could relevantly advance claims for Francovich damages and the breach of EU law founded upon was 'sufficiently serious' to give rise to state liability. 

Company – Insolvency. The Chancery Division dismissed an application seeking declarations that the appointment of the first three respondents as joint administrators of a company had been a nullity because of an alleged prior floating charge in favour of another company. The court allowed a cross-application by the respondents, the joint administrators and Nationwide Building society, to strike out the substantive application having found that Nationwide's predecessor (Derbyshire), had had a qualifying floating charge for the purposes of s 251 of the Insolvency Act 1986, which Nationwide had acquired and that the company had never acquired the hotel in question and its adjoining land otherwise than subject to the terms of Derbyshire's legal charge and debenture. Accordingly, nothing had had the effect of depriving the Derbyshire debenture of its status of a floating charge as created and Nationwide had not been not precluded from making the appointment of the joint administrators. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. The Court of Protection considered four test cases in which it was thought that there was no family member or friend who could be appointed as a representative under r 3A of the Court of Protection Rules 2007, SI 2007/1744. The court held that, among other things, the primary responsibility to provide a resource that enabled it either to make such appointments or to otherwise meet the minimum procedural requirements in cases in the classes represented by the test cases fell on the Secretary of State, or on the Secretary of State together with the applicant authorities. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Family Court decided that, on the evidence it was in the two children's best interests to be removed from the jurisdiction to Malaysia with the mother on a temporary basis for a family wedding. Although the risk of abduction was low, the consequence of a breach was significant and to that end the mother was to lodge a surety of £5000 with the court to be made available to the father for his legal costs should she fail to return. 

Judicial review – Legal aid – Human rights – Right to respect for private and family life. Court of Session: Granting a judicial review petition by a petitioner, who was a complainer in criminal proceedings, and whose application for legal aid to enable her to be represented at a hearing before the sheriff of the accused's petition for recovery of her medical records was refused by the Scottish Ministers, who argued that she had no right to be heard or represented before the sheriff on that application, the court held that a haver and any person whose rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights might be infringed by an order for recovery of medical records and other sensitive documents must have the application for recovery intimated to them and be given the opportunity to be heard in opposition to the application before an order was made or, at least, before the documents were handed over to the party seeking them: accordingly the court reduced the Scottish Ministers' decision, founded as it was on an error of law as to the complainer's right to be heard, leaving the ministers to make a new decision on a correct legal basis.