Latest Cases

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. 

Parent and child – International child abduction. Court of Session: Refusing a father's petition for an order for the return to Australia of his two daughters, aged six and eight, who had been wrongfully removed to Scotland by their mother, the court held that the father had acquiesced in the wrongful removal of the children, that evidence of what occurred during mediation held in Scotland was admissible, and that it would not be appropriate to return the children from Scotland to Australia. 

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. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Queen's Bench Division having regard to the competing rights in arts 8 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights granted a without notice interim non-disclosure order in respect of explicit material being threatened to be put into the public domain following the break up of a relationship of a well know actor. 

Criminal law – Company. The defendant civil engineering design company appealed against its conviction for two health and safety offences. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the judge had correctly determined that the issue as to whether there had been a material risk had been a matter for the jury and that there had been ample evidence of material risk. 

Bank – Duty of care. The Mercantile Court dismissed the claimants' case against the defendant bank for compensation for their losses on the sale of their investment portfolio. The court held that in giving the advice that it had done the defendant had not acted negligently, in breach of contract, or in breach of its statutory duties under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and the Conduct of Business Sourcebook Rules. 

Repudiation – Implied repudiation. The Commercial Court held that the defendant television company had wrongfully terminated the claimant company's contract with it. The events that the defendant had described as fundamental breaches of the agreement between the parties had not been, and so the defendant had not been entitled to terminate the agreement. In purporting to do so, it had itself been in repudiatory breach of the agreement. 

Public procurement – Public contracts. The Privy Council, in dismissing an appeal by the Central Tenders Board (the CTB) and the Attorney General of Montserrat, ruled that, notwithstanding a procedural defect in the respondent's application to tender, the CTB had had express statutory power and a discretion to accept it. Accordingly, the lower court's decision, upheld on appeal, that the CTB had breached a contract for the erection of a school hall by awarding it to, and then withdrawing it from, the respondent, would stand. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. The Court of Protection dismissed an application by the patient's daughter to a joint appointment as deputy with her brother, or the appointment of a completely independent professional deputy on the basis that having regard to s 6(8) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, the daughter had failed to discharge the burden of satisfying the court that the brother had behaved in a way that had contravened his authority or was not in the patient's best interests. 

Costs – Interest on costs. The Commercial Court considered the date from which interest, under s 17 of the Judgments Act 1838, should run on costs payable by the claimant. Having considered the applicable principles, it ordered that interest on the costs payable by the claimant to the defendants and to the second third party was to run at the Bank of England Base Rate plus 2% from the dates when the costs had been incurred until a date three months after the orders for costs had been made, and at the rate prescribed by s 17 of the Act thereafter.