Latest Cases

Mental health – Court of Protection. The Court of protection refused an application by the patient's neighbour, the applicant, to be appointed her deputy in place of the local authority. The applicant had failed to satisfy the court that it was in the patient's best interest and also the patient's wish was that the authority remain her deputy. 

Immigration – Appeal. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed an appeal against a decision of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) that it did not have jurisdiction to consider an appeal. The original decision to refuse the appellant an EEA residence card had been made under the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations, SI 2006/1003. No one stop notice had been served under s 120 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. Therefore, the appellant had not been entitled to raise asylum and human rights grounds on appeal, and had been constrained to appealing the original decision under the Regulations. 

Contempt of court – Witness – Failure to attend trial diet. High Court of Justiciary: Passing a bill of suspension brought by a complainer who was the victim of an assault and was cited as a witness to give evidence at the trial of his alleged assailant but who failed to attend the trial diet and was found to have been in contempt of court, the court concluded that in the particular circumstances of the case—namely that the night before the court diet the complainer's eight‑year‑old son had had an accident requiring surgery for a broken shoulder bone—the high test for contempt had not been met, and it quashed the finding of contempt. 

Criminal procedure – Bail conditions – Right to respect for private and family life. High Court of Justiciary: In the case of an accused who, after pleading not guilty to, inter alia, assaulting his girlfriend, was admitted to bail subject to special conditions that he should not enter the street where she lived or attempt to contact her, and who appealed against a sheriff's refusal of his application to vary the bail conditions and presented a compatibility minute averring that the complainer did not wish him to be subject to the special conditions and that his and her rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights had been breached, the court proceeded on the basis that the accused and complainer had art 8 rights which were sufficiently engaged but held that they had not been infringed; that the existing procedures in relation to bail applications of the kind under consideration were convention-compliant; and that while the complainer had no right to be represented in court or to address the court that did not mean that there was no mechanism for drawing her views to the court's attention. 

Sentencing – Supply of drugs. High Court of Justiciary: Refusing an appeal against sentence by an appellant who pled guilty to a charge of supplying heroin and was sentenced to 13½ years' imprisonment, discounted by 25% from 18 years for the early plea, the court held that any error the sentencing judge made in relation to the volume of dealing fell into the de minimis category when the overall amounts were realised, and the final sentence arrived at was a reasonable one in all the circumstances. 

Insurance – Liability insurance. The Commercial Court allowed the defendant French insurance company's application, in which it disputed the jurisdiction of the English court to hear and determine proceedings brought the claimant insurance company. The court had no jurisdiction pursuant to either art 7(1) or (2) of Council Regulation (EU) 1215/2012 and the proceedings had to be dismissed. 

Personal injury – Vicarious liability – Employer and employee. Sheriff Court: Refusing an appeal against a sheriff's decision by a pursuer who sustained injuries as a result of an accident in the course of his employment with the defenders when a hammer a manager had thrown at another employee struck him on the head, the court concluded that the sheriff had not erred in deciding that the defenders were not vicariously liable for the act of the manager, their employee, as it could not be said that his reckless act occurred in the course of his employment. 

Guarantee – Enforcement. The Chancery Division dismissed an appeal against a district judge's dismissal of the claimant's application to set aside a second statutory demand issued by a bank against him under a guarantee where it had been based on the same argument, promissory estoppel, used in respect of his application to set aside the first statutory demand issued by the bank. Where there was a second statutory demand, an argument that had been run unsuccessfully and abandoned on appeal could not be raised in respect of a second statutory demand unless there was a change of, or special circumstances. There were no special or exceptional circumstances in the present case to justify re-opening or re-arguing the promissory estoppel point, which had previously been rejected and the district judge had been entitled to come to the conclusion that he had. 

Judicial review – Social welfare services of local authorities – Adjustments between authorities. Court of Session: Refusing a judicial review petition challenging a decision by the Scottish Ministers that notwithstanding that an elderly lady was living in a care home in East Lothian, having previously lived in Milton Keynes, she remained ordinarily resident in Milton Keynes, a case which turned on the correct construction of the term 'ordinary residence' for the purposes of s 86 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, the court held that in reaching the decision they did the respondents applied the correct test and the decision was legitimate, transparent, plainly consistent with the guidance set out in Scottish Government Guidance Circular 3/2010, and made according to law. 

Bankruptcy – Trustee in bankruptcy. The Bankruptcy High Court granted the applicant discharged bankrupt permission to bring an action against the respondent, the released joint trustee in bankruptcy, under s 304 of the Insolvency Act 1986 for an order that he repay, restore or account for money or pay a sum by way of compensation in respect of misfeasance or breach of fiduciary duty in carrying out his functions as trustee. There was evidence to suggest that the applicant had a reasonably meritorious cause of action against the respondent on the basis of his having incurred and paid legal fees in excess of what he had had authority to incur.