Latest Cases

Judicial review – Pilot's authorisation – Disciplinary/revocation procedure. Court of Session: Refusing a judicial review petition by a River Forth pilot who was placed on a 12-month performance review following four marine incidents in 2012, and then given notice of intention to revoke his pilot's authorisation by the harbour authority following a fifth incident, the court preferred the respondents' construction of the Pilotage Code of Practice, held that on that construction the code had not been complied with, but concluded that such failures as there had been did not invalidate the decisions and procedure to date. 

Employment – Discrimination against a woman. The employment tribunal upheld claims by the employee that, inter alia, she had been discriminated against on the grounds of pregnancy, maternity and her sex and awarded her compensation. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in allowing the respondents' appeal against that finding, held that the tribunal had not applied the correct legal test. Accordingly, the findings of pregnancy and maternity discrimination would be set aside and the matter remitted to the same tribunal. 

Employment – 'Worker'. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal brought by the appellant solicitor against the decision of the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in which the Court of Appeal had decided that, applying s 4(4) of the Limited Liability Partnerships Act 2000, she was not a 'worker' within the meaning of s 230(3)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and was therefore not entitled to claim the protection of its whistle blowing provisions. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal, deciding that s 4(4) of the 2000 Act did have the meaning ascribed to it by the Court of Appeal. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. The patient suffered a stroke which left him incapacitated and unable to manage his own affairs. There were two applicants to the court of protection who sought to manage his affairs. The Court of Protection chose the candidate proposed by a support network of friends and neighbours, who represented the status quo in terms of being the persons in whom the patient had placed trust and confidence immediately before he became incapacitated. 

Mental health – Human rights. Court of Session: Allowing a reclaiming motion in judicial review proceedings by a patient who was detained indefinitely in the State Hospital, challenging a decision to implement a comprehensive ban on smoking there, the court held that the Lord Ordinary had erred in holding that the respondents did not have the power to implement the prohibition on smoking under the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978, and in holding that art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights was engaged, or, if it was, that there had been disproportionate interference with the petitioner's rights. 

National Health Service – Health authority. From 2006 until 2008, the claimant's late mother had been a resident at a nursing home. The defendant was asked by the claimant to review the position of his mother prior to her death in respect of her eligibility for continuing healthcare throughout her residence at the home. The defendant refused to assess her position between May 2007 and her death in 2008, and the claimant sought judicial review. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that the decision not to review the May and September assessments was irrational and unreasonable. 

Will – Construction of will. The daughter and former solicitor of Lucian Freud as the executrices of his will, contended that the will was subject to a secret trust. They sought a declaration that, by the will, they were absolutely entitled to the deceased's residuary estate. The defendant contended that the residuary estate had been given to the claimants to hold on trust and that the trust was a half secret trust. The Chancery Division, in allowing the claim, held that, on the true construction of the will, the claimants were absolutely entitled to the deceased's residuary estate. 

Contract – Breach of contract. The claimant, Credit Suisse, brought proceedings, claiming €83,196,829 from the defendant company as money allegedly due under an International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA) 2002 agreement (the master agreement) in respect of 11 transactions it had allegedly entered with the defendant. The claimant contended that it had duly terminated the master agreement after the defendant had failed to provide security due under a credit support annex. The Commercial Court held that, notwithstanding that three of the contracts, comprising six of the disputed transactions, had been outside the defendant's capacity and therefore invalid, because of warranties in additional representations in the master agreement, that did not affect Credit Suisse's rights or the defendant's obligations under the master agreement. Alternatively, the claimant was entitled in damages for breach of the warranties to the amount that they could have recovered under the master agreement if all the agreements were valid and binding on the defendant. 

Immigration – Asylum seeker. The claimant Iranian national sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's refusal to treat his further submissions as a fresh claim. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the Secretary of State had addressed her task in a manner consistent with the required approach. She had been entitled to find that the claimant's credibility had not been fully restored by his further submissions. 

Costs – Assessment. The Technology and Construction Court held that the appropriate order was that the claimant should pay the defendant its costs, to be assessed on a standard basis, if not agreed, without any reduction for a failure on the part of the defendant to mediate.