Latest Cases

Sentencing – Road traffic offences – Sentence discounting. Sheriff Appeal Court: Refusing an appeal by an appellant who was offered a fixed penalty notice with a £100 fine and 3 penalty points in respect of a speeding offence but was unable to pay, and in proceedings raised in the Justice of the Peace Court pled guilty at the first opportunity and was fined £315, reduced by discount from £460, and received 4 penalty points, with no discount being applied to the penalty points, the court held that penalty points were susceptible to discount in the same way as any other penalty and the consideration of public protection did not justify declining to discount for an early plea of guilty, the Justice therefore erred in considering that public protection provided a valid reason for declining to discount the 4 penalty points, however given the speed at which the appellant was travelling the imposition of 4 penalty points was not excessive or inappropriate so as to represent a miscarriage of justice. 

Criminal evidence and procedure – Admissibility of hearsay evidence – Right to fair trial. Sheriff Appeal Court: Refusing an appeal against conviction for assault by an appellant at whose trial the sheriff admitted the hearsay evidence of a child witness in the form of a police statement after she refused to enter a room where she had been due to give evidence by CCTV, the court concluded that the sheriff was entitled to be satisfied that the witness had refused to be admonished to tell the truth such that the evidence of her statement was admissible under s 259 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, and that the admission of the hearsay did not render the trial unfair in terms of art 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Agent – Commercial agent. The Commercial Court awarded the claimant commercial agent damages for breach of contract, the termination of the agency on insufficient notice and compensation under reg 17 of the Commercial Agents (Council Directive) Regulations 1993, SI 1993/3053. The defendant had not accepted the claimant's repudiatory breach as having brought an agency agreement to an end and had affirmed the agreement. 

Conflict of laws – Jurisdiction. The Commercial Court refused the claimant owner of a vessel's application for an anti-suit injunction to restrain the defendant purchaser of cargo shipped on the vessel from suing it in Nigeria in respect of losses it allegedly sustained after the vessel became grounded in Nigeria, causing delay in the delivery of the cargo. It held that the relevant time charter had been made between the owner and the charterer and the charterer had not entered into that agreement as an agent of the defendant. Accordingly, the defendant was not bound by the terms of the time charter to submit disputes to the jurisdiction of the English court. Further, there was no free-standing agreement between the owner and the defendant to refer disputes arising out of the carriage of the cargo to the jurisdiction of the English court. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. The Court of Protection allowed an application by a the husband of the patient to appoint her him as a deputy for property and affairs. That appointment was in the face of opposition by the patient's children on the basis that the husband was illiterate and had a poor grasp of English. 

Judicial review – Assisted suicide – Human rights. Court of Session: Refusing a reclaiming motion in a judicial review petition by a petitioner who sought declarator that the Lord Advocate's failure to publish specific guidance on the facts and circumstances he would take into account in deciding whether to prosecute someone who assisted another to commit suicide was a breach of the petitioner's right to respect for his private life, the court held that the respondent had expressed his policy in a clear manner and it could not be said that he was exercising his discretion in a way which was arbitrary and did not meet the requirements of legality: the respondent's interference with the petitioner's right under art 8.1 of the European Convention on Human Rights was in accordance with the law in terms of art 8.2 

Personal injuries – Action. In the course of proceedings against the defendants for an injury in the course of employment, the Queen's Bench Division determined that the claimant had proved that he had suffered from an actionable psychiatric injury, namely, hysterical pseudodementia. 

Town and country planning – Development. The Administrative Court allowed the claimant university's challenge to the decision of the inspector appointed by the first defendant Secretary of State, dismissing its appeal against the second defendant local planning authority's refusal of its application for a certificate of lawful use. The inspector had been wrong to refuse the certificate because that was what previous planning permissions, on their correct construction, permitted. 

Adoption – Practice. The Family Division considered two cases, which were heard together as they raised common issues, involving babies born to mothers from Eastern Europe, but relinquished at birth for adoption in the United Kingdom. Among other things, the court considered what jurisdiction the court had to have to make orders facilitating such placements and what factors had to be taken into account when making decisions about relinquished babies, the possible outcomes and the procedures that should be followed. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Queen's Bench Division held that the claim by the claimant customer against the defendant bank would be struck out as the claimant had accepted a settlement offer and received redress of over £420,000 from the defendant.