Latest Cases

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. 

European Union – Public procurement. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the application by Euro-Link Consultants Srl and another company in the same consortium (the applicants) for the annulment of the decision not to award the contract for 'Crimean tourism diversification and support project' to the applicants' consortium and the subsequent decisions rejecting the applicants' complaints. 

Company – Director. The claimant Secretary of State issued proceedings, relying on certain transactions as demonstrating that the defendant's conduct as a director of a company made him unfit to be concerned in the management of a company, within s 6 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986. The Chancery Division held that, due to the defendant's untrue representations, he was unfit to be concerned in the management of a company and would be disqualified for a period of seven years. 

Guarantee – Misrepresentation. A bank sought to enforce two limited guarantees signed by the defendant, as security for facilities provided by the bank to a property development company owned by the defendant and his son. The defendant contended that he was entitled to rescind the guarantees on the grounds of misrepresentation and economic duress. The Chancery Division, in granting the bank's claim, and in dismissing the counterclaim, held that, whilst, in principle, a statement by a bank or other financial institution that it wanted to increase its exposure in a particular business sector might, if untrue, be capable of providing the basis for a claim in misrepresentation, the defendant had, on the facts, failed to establish that defence or economic duress. 

Riot – Damage. In the course of the 2011 London Riots, a gang of youths broke into a warehouse, looted it and burned it down with petrol bombs. The judge held that the gang were 'persons riotously and tumultuously assembled' so that the defendant Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime was liable to compensate anyone who had sustained losses, but that the defendant's liability did not extend to consequential loss. The parties appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division held that the judge had been correct in his findings on liability. However, s 2(1) of the Riot (Damages) Act 1886 included a right to compensation for consequential loss. 

Solicitor – Negligence. The appellant solicitors appealed against the judge's finding of negligence and award of damages to the respondent client on the basis of the loss of a chance of further recovery in his claim for services required as a consequence of his disability. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the judge's findings on causation were unassailable. If properly advised, there would have been no sensible reason for the respondent not to pursue the services claim. Further, it was inherently implausible that the respondent had given up the services claim because he had realised that it had been based on exaggeration at least verging on dishonesty. 

Mental health – Persons who lack capacity. A 17 year old girl, P, took an overdose and refused life saving treatment when presented at a hospital run by the defendant NHS Trust. The Trust came to court seeking various declarations that it was lawful and in P's best interests for the medical practitioners having responsibility for her care and treatment to treat her for the overdose notwithstanding the fact that she was refusing treatment. The Family Division held that it was lawful to make such a declaration in order to save P's life. 

Warrant – Search warrant. Search warrants made and executed, and restraint orders made, concerning the claimants were subsequently quashed. The defendant court held that it had jurisdiction to entertain the Revenue and Customs Commissioners' application, under s 59 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, for the retention of the seized material and the claimants sought judicial review. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the application, held that the meaning and intent of s 59 of the Act was plain. The Crown Court had jurisdiction to entertain an application by the Revenue under s 59 of the Act. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The claimant was a corporate entity which provided services to the United Kingdom and other governments. The defendant was a former employee of the claimant and the author of at least two blogs in which confidential information was published. The claimant sought an order requiring the respondent solicitors for the defendant, to disclose his name. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed the application and held that the disclosure of the client's name would have the practical effect of disclosing confidential communications between lawyer and client. 

Criminal law – Committal. The Privy Council dismissed the appellant's appeal against the dismissal of his claims for malicious prosecution and false imprisonment, in circumstances where it had been it was unsurprising that both the High Court and the Court of Appeal of Trinidad and Tobago had not been prepared to draw the inference that the prosecutor had acted with malice in proceeding with the prosecution against the appellant.