Latest Cases

Minor – Removal outside jurisdiction. A relocation order had been granted allowing a mother to move with her child to Germany and the father appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, clarified the current law with respect to any application for the permanent international relocation of a child and held that the judge had erred in having not carried out an overall welfare analysis. 

Company – Director. The Commercial Court dismissed a number of claims made against the estate of G, the deceased director of a nightclub, relating to alleged breaches of duty carried out by G in the course of his directorship. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. The Court of Protection held that in the patient's best interest, the only best interests decision to be made was to give permission for the above knee amputation of the patient's left leg, where she had no understanding that the alternative to amputation was death. 

Husband and wife – Divorce – Financial provision – Pension sharing order. Court of Session: Refusing an appeal concerning a wife's claim for a pension sharing order, in which the issue was what proportion of the value of the husband's rights or interests in an occupational pension scheme was referable the period of the marriage prior to the date of separation, the court held that the sheriff had correctly preferred the husband's approach to the Divorce etc. (Pensions) (Scotland) Regulations 2000, which was to confine consideration to the period during which he had made pension contributions: 'membership', in reg 4, ought, accordingly, to be read as restricted to 'active' membership as defined in s 124(1) of the Pensions Act 1995. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. The Court of Protection considered whether it was in the patient's best interest for her to be deprived of her liberty in a care home under a standard authorisation. It concluded that the current placement had met the needs of the patient and therefore the objection under s 21A of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to the standard authorisation would be dismissed. 

Costs – Assessment. The Senior Court Costs Office made a detailed assessment of the claimants costs for the period both before and after 1 April 2013 in doing so it considered whether the costs claimed were disproportionate and whether the bill should have been divided into parts to reflect the phases of the budget before and after 1 April 2013 and of the costs budgeting, having regard to para 5.8 of PD 47. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. A judge had refuse to extend a worldwide freezing order against the first respondent to nine corporate entities which acted as trustees of trusts of which the first respondent was a beneficiary. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, extended the freezing order as the judge had erred in refusing to grant the application. 

Commercial contract – Construction. Court of Session: In an action concerning a Minute of Agreement relating to a development site owned by the petitioners which provided that they would reimburse the respondents' professional fees on fulfilment of certain conditions, the court held that the agreement must be construed as submitted by the respondents, who argued that there was no obligation on them to obtain planning consent; the petitioners were obliged to pay if they sold to a third party within five years of the agreement, they did so and therefore they were obliged to pay. 

Practice – Summary judgment. The Commercial Court dismissed the claimant's application for summary judgment regarding the defendant's default on repayments of a loan. The court held that, although there the claimant's case was strong, it was not possible, in the circumstances, to conclude that there was no real prospect of the defendant successfully defending the claim. 

Immigration – Deportation – Exclusion of right of appeal. Court of Session: Refusing a judicial review petition in which the petitioner sought reduction of the Home Secretary's certification excluding a right of appeal and her decision to refuse to revoke a deportation order relating to him, the court held that although the respondent had failed to ask herself whether or not, notwithstanding that the statutory criteria were met, she should exercise her discretion by allowing an appeal to be brought, the petitioner's case was such that it would have been inevitable that, had the respondent properly addressed the discretion, it would have exercised against him.