Latest Cases

Sentence – Sexual offences against children. The defendant renewed his application for leave to appeal against his sentence of seven years' imprisonment for two counts of sexual assault of a child under 13 years and four counts of sexual activity with a child. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, granted permission and allowed the appeal only to the extent of quashing such parts of the order as required payment of a victim surcharge, which had been unlawfully imposed, as the sentence had not included a fine. 

European Union – Freedom of movement. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art 56(1) EC. The request had been made in proceedings brought by F.E. Familienprivatstiftung Eisenstadt (Eisenstadt) against the decision of the Austrian Independent Finance Tribunal, External Section, Vienna, that had refused Eisenstadt the right to have gifts paid to beneficiaries resident in other member states taken account of in calculating a tax to which Eisenstadt had been subject in respect of the 2001 and 2002 assessment periods. 

Adoption – Practice. The present proceedings arose out of the adoption of a child who had been born to the claimant. The Family Division, in dismissing the claimant's claims for certain declarations under the Human Rights Act 1998, held, among other things, that the making of an adoption order always brought pre-existing rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights as between a birth parent and an adopted child to an end. Those rights had arisen from, and co-existed with, the parent-child relationship, which was extinguished by adoption. 

Costs – Orders for costs. The claimant challenged the order that he pay the defendant Secretary of State her costs of £400 for acknowledgement of service and summary grounds. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), in dismissing the application, gave guidance on the application of the indemnity principle to the Secretary of State and the Government Legal Department. It then held that there was not the remotest scope for the argument that £200 per hour was an unreasonably high rate. 

Costs – Order for costs. The Family Division ruled that a father, who had brought family proceedings seeking contact with his daughter, and who had unsuccessfully brought committal proceedings against CAFCASS officers, and against the third defendant solicitor, who had represented his former partner, had to pay the third defendant's costs on the indemnity basis. 

Judicial review – Assisted suicide – Human rights. Court of Session: Dismissing a judicial review petition by a petitioner who sought declarator that the Lord Advocate was in breach of the right to respect for private and family life in failing to promulgate a policy identifying the facts and circumstances he would take into account in deciding whether to prosecute a person who helped another to commit suicide, the court was satisfied that the respondent's policy in relation to prosecution for homicide where the circumstances involved assisted suicide did not lack the requisite accessibility or foreseeability, nor was it arbitrary, and it was therefore 'in accordance with the law'. 

Civil procedure – Decree by default – Reduction of decree. Court of Session: In an action in which the pursuers sought reduction of a decree by default of the Court of Session, pronounced in January 2009, reducing a disposition granted in their favour, the court held that having regard to what the pursuers offered to prove it could not be said that they would be bound to fail at proof and it therefore repelled the defender's plea to the relevancy and to dismiss the action and allowed a proof before answer. 

Practice – Judgments and orders. The Intellectual Property Enterprise Court ruled that, while it had jurisdiction to reconsider its earlier judgment on a claim for copyright infringement, the claimant was not entitled to such a reconsideration in circumstances where it could not be shown that information, which the claimant sought to rely on in applying for reconsideration, could not have been obtained without reasonable diligence for use at the trial. 

Limitation of action – Accrual of cause of action. The Central London County Court dismissed the claimant lender's claim for damages for professional negligence against the defendant valuer on the ground that, among other things, it was statute-barred. 

Commercial contract – Construction. Court of Session: Dismissing a reclaiming motion an action by a pursuer who, during his employment with the defenders became a partner and invested money in seven limited partnerships designed to reward employees and provide them with performance incentives, and who on leaving the defenders' employment was told he was a 'competing leaver' in terms of the partnership agreements and therefore only entitled to restricted payment for his share in each partnership, the court held that the Lord Ordinary had reached the correct conclusion for the correct reasons when he decided that the pursuer was not a 'competing leaver' and granted declarator that he was an ordinary leaver.