Latest Cases

Advertisement – Control. The defendant regulators had neither made an error of law, nor acted irrationally, in reaching a decision that the average consumer was unlikely to be misled by the unqualified use of the word fibre in advertisements for part-fibre broadband services targeted at consumers. Accordingly, the Administrative Court dismissed the claimant company's claim for judicial review of the defendants' decision.

Estoppel – Proprietary estoppel. The claimant son had established an equity in his favour in relation to his claim for an interest in a dairy farm owned by his defendant parents. Accordingly, the Chancery division held that the appropriate remedy to satisfy the claimant's equity was a lump sum payment which reflected, among other things, 50% after tax of the market value of the dairy farming business, and 40% after tax of the market value of the freehold land and buildings at the farm.

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The judge had made no error in principle and had reached a discretionary decision that had been open to him in ordering that a freezing order against the appellant would be discharged except in relation to French chattels. However, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, varied the condition that the appellant provide a residential address before the partial discharge could take effect, so that it allowed for the possibility for the appellant, if he had no residential address, to set out relevant details with full particularity in a witness statement.

Immigration – Appeal. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, declared that it had and had always had no jurisdiction to hear the appellants' appeal against the decision of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) in Glasgow, dismissing their appeal against the respondent Secretary of State's refusal of leave to remain as a Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) Migrant. Although Form IA 157 was, in relation to appeals heard in Scotland or Northern Ireland, both a trap for the unwary and defectively drafted, the Court of Session had been specified as the court to which a renewed application for permission to appeal should be brought.

Immigration – European Economic Area nationals. The effect of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006, SI 2006/1003, was that an extended family member acquired a right of permanent residence under reg 15(1)(b) only if he had resided in the UK with the relevant EEA national for a continuous period of five years since being issued with a residence card. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the Secretary of State's appeal, rejected the respondent's contention that time began to run from the start of residence in a durable relationship with an EU citizen partner.

Extradition – Passage of time. The appellant's extradition would not be a disproportionate interference with his rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, be unjust and oppressive due to his health conditions and/or so barred by the Extradition Act 2003 ss 14 and/or s 25. Accordingly, the Administrative Court dismissed his appeal against the order for his extradition to the Netherlands serve the remainder of a sentence of 26 months in relation to four offences described as participation in a criminal organisation and swindling.

Personal injury – Exposure to asbestos – Liability. Court of Session: In an action in which the relatives of a woman who died of mesothelioma sought damages, contending that the defender exposed her to asbestos dust in the course of her employment negligently and/or in breach of statutory duty, the court held that the pursuers had established liability both under s 63(1) of the Factories Act 1961 and at common law as they had proved that the processes undertaken in the defender's foundry during the period of the deceased's employment there created substantial dust, including asbestos dust, to which the deceased was regularly and frequently exposed; her exposure was to an extent likely to be injurious to her, as it ultimately was; that injury was reasonably foreseeable and the defender did nothing to prevent it.

Criminal law – Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Scotland) Act 2015 – Compatibility with EU Directive. High Court of Justiciary: In proceedings in which a Vietnamese man, who was prosecuted for, inter alia, producing cannabis, presented a compatibility minute, and a reference from the sheriff at Glasgow, posed three questions, the court held that the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Scotland) Act 2015 was not incompatible with Directive 2011/36/EU in the absence of a statutory defence to the effect that the minuter had been compelled to act as he did as a direct consequence of being subject to human trafficking; in the absence of a statutory defence the continued prosecution of the minuter was not incompatible with the Directive, Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and art 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights; and, the 2015 Act and continuation of the proceedings being compatible with the Directive, the court did not require to give directions additional to the standard directions so as to give effect to the Directive.

Solicitors – Complaints – Vexatious complaint. Court of Session: Refusing an appeal against the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission ('SLCC')'s determination that the appellant's complaint against a solicitor was vexatious and accordingly not eligible for investigation, the court rejected the contention that the SLCC's decision was not supported by the facts it found to be established: on the basis of the facts it found to be established the SLCC was entitled to conclude that there was no basis for the appellant's complaint and that the complaint was vexatious.

Immigration – Asylum – Fear of persecution – Fresh claim – Expert evidence. Court of Session: Refusing a petition by a Chinese national who challenged a decision that her further submissions did not amount to a fresh asylum and human rights claim on the basis of her religion as a Jehovah's witness and breach of Chinese family planning policy by having two children, the court held that the respondent's decision that the petitioner would not be entitled to rely, in support of her own hypothetical appeal, on evidence given by an expert witness in another case, was one that she was entitled to reach and not therefore unreasonable or irrational.