Latest Cases

Negligence – Causation. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed the claimant's claim on behalf of the estate of her deceased husband against the defendant General Practitioner who had examined the husband and discovered that he had blood pressure in the high range. The court held that, on the evidence, it was satisfied that the defendant had told the husband that his blood pressure was raised and that he should visit his regular GP to get it checked out. 

Criminal law – Evidence of bad character. The defendant appealed against his conviction for possessing a firearm with intent to commit an indictable offence, namely, murder and making a threat to kill, and the sentence of 12 years' imprisonment imposed. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that the convictions were safe, notwithstanding a misdirection as to bad character and the lack of an effective or qualified direction as to good character. However, it found the sentence was manifestly excessive and substituted a sentence of 10 years' custody. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. The Court of Protection refused to make an authorisation in regard to deprivation of liberty in relation to the accommodation of the patient provided by the local authority as part of a care package. 

Prison – Prisoner. The appellant had been convicted of a notorious racially-aggravated abduction and murder of a 15 year old boy. He had spent 56 months in solitary confinement in prison in Scotland. The Supreme Court, reversing the decision of the Extra Division of the Inner House, ruled that the appellant had been segregated without lawful authority between certain periods of his detention and that the circumstances of the segregation had violated his rights under art 8 the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Mental health – Patient's property. The Court of Protection made decisions regarding the patient's living arrangement and visitation rights of her family between whom there was considerable disagreement about various matter relating to her care and also to previous business dealings. The court held that publication of an anonymised judgment would be futile as so much information was already in the public domain and it was in the public interest for the court to publish its judgment in the case in a form that named individuals. 

Negligence – Duty of care – Local roads authority – Street lighting. Court of Session: In an action in which the pursuer, who suffered a broken ankle after losing his footing and falling when making his way home in the early morning, averred that the local roads authority knew or ought to have known that their failure to provide appropriate street lighting would cause him and others to be at risk of injury, and contended that lighting was on all night before his accident, no one had told him it was to be turned off and he was unaware of the defenders' change in lighting policy, the court concluded that the lights were not on all night prior to the accident and that in particular that they were off at 0115 at the latest, and it followed that neither the defender's policy itself nor its implementation could have caused any accident after 0200, whether there was a lack of consultation and notice or not. 

Town and country planning – Planning permission – Wind turbines. Court of Session: Refusing a reclaiming motion by an appellant who had appealed against a decision by a Local Review Body (LRB) of a local authority to grant planning permission for the erection of two wind turbines near her home, the court held that the Lord Ordinary had not fallen into any error of law in refusing the appeal, and the LRB's decision letter said enough in its own terms and by reference to other material to satisfy the court that the LRB's decision was within the powers of Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 and that it complied with the relevant statutory requirements. 

Company – Merger. The Companies Court considered an application under Regulation 16 of the Companies (Cross-Border Mergers) Regulations 2007to approve a merger between two companies. It approved the merger, but suggested that the process by which the court had considered whether a merger should be approved, in the case of Diamond Resorts (Europe) Ltd, Re ([2012] EWHC 3576 (Ch)) might have gone beyond that which was required by the relevant European Union legislation. 

Coroner – Inquest. The claimant applied for judicial review, seeking the quashing of an inquest's conclusion that her son had taken his own life while in custody. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the application, held that the inquest had been complaint with art 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the defendant coroner's directions to the jury had not been wrong. 

Immigration – Appeal. The appellants had been refused permission to seek judicial review of the certification of their human rights claims under s 94B of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed their appeals, but dismissed the substantive judicial review applications. The court gave guidance on the interpretation of s 94B and its interplay with art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.