Latest Cases

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 evidence – Admissibility of evidence – Pilot – Excess alcohol in blood – Blood specimen. High Court of Justiciary: Allowing appeals by two pilots who were each indicted for the offence of performing an activity ancillary to an aviation function when the proportion of alcohol in their blood was in excess of the prescribed limit, who provided A' and 'B' samples of blood, the B' samples having been placed with their property, transferred to prison whilst they were remanded in custody and subsequently destroyed, the court held that that the sheriff erred in repelling objections to the admissibility of evidence relating to the 'A' samples on the basis that the 'B' samples had not been supplied to appellants: in the circumstances of the case there was no effective supply of the 'B' samples to them in terms of s 15(5) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.

Contract – Consumer contract. The defendant company's challenge to jurisdiction failed, in a case concerning an investment the claimant had made through Bitcoin. The defendant, relying on art 25 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, contended that A was bound by its standard terms and conditions, which provided that the courts of Cyprus were to have exclusive jurisdiction over all disputes and controversies arising out of, or in connection with, her customer agreement. The issue concerned whether A was a 'consumer'. The Commercial Court held that the purpose of A's contract had been outside of any business of hers and fell within art 17 of the Regulation. On that basis, the challenge to jurisdiction was dismissed.

Mental health – Persons who lack capacity. The Court of Protection, applying s 4 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA 2005), approved, in part, the applicant's treatment plan concerning the first respondent, a 78-year-old man who suffered from advanced vascular dementia, and whose physical condition had significantly deteriorated.

Family Proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. In an appeal from a decision dismissing care proceedings in respect of two children at an interim stage and recommending private proceedings as a means of resolving the issues, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the local authority and the Children's Guardian's appeal. It held that the trial judge should have affirmed that the threshold was to be approached from the perspective of the children. Further, the judge should have appreciated that delay in bringing proceedings, however lamentable, could not, of itself, be determinative of the threshold under the Children Act 1989.

Minor – Custody-. A retention which took place other than in a contracting state was a retention which was justiciable, under the Hague Convention 1980, in a contracting state. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the mother's appeal against an order made by a judge in England, requiring the return of a child (C) to Australia, where C had been habitually resident, and in circumstances where the wrongful retention had occurred in Uganda, a non-contracting state, before the parties had travelled to the UK. The court held that the judge had been right to determine that the wrongful retention in Uganda continued to be a justiciable retention.

European Union – Environment. By the adoption of Implementing Decision C(2016) 3549 final, the European Commission had granted three waste recycling companies an authorisation for uses of bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP) under Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006. ClientEarth, established in London unsuccessfully sought an internal review of the authorisation decision. In the present proceedings, ClientEarth sought annulment of the Commission's decision to reject its internal review request and annulment of the authorisation decision. The General Court of the European Union dismissed ClientEarth's action on the basis that all the arguments relied on by ClientEarth in support of its application were unfounded.

Extradition - Extradition order – Fugitive offender. The district judge had discharged the respondent pursuant to s 14 of the Extradition Act 2003 on the ground that extradition to Poland would be oppressive. The respondent was facing prosecution in Poland for 18 offences of fraud. In allowing the appellant Polish district court's appeal, the Administrative Court held that the judge erred in her conclusion that extraditing the respondent would be oppressive by reason of the passage of time. The judge had further erred in her approach to the question of whether respect for the respondent's family and private life and that of her partner had been outweighed by the public interest in extradition.

Company – Scheme of arrangement. The applicant companies' applications for the approval of a scheme of arrangement succeeded. The Companies Court held that, in the circumstances, there was no reason why the scheme should not proceed. Meetings of the scheme creditors would be convened as sought.

Disclosure and inspection of documents – Legal professional privilege. The applicant company's applications were allowed in part, in a dispute concerning the funding and ownership of Sheffield United Football Club. The Chancery Division held that, while the applicant (SUL) would be permitted to amend its claim to a limited extent, its application for further disclosure was refused. The defendant parties had made good their claim to legal professional privilege in other categories of documents. Further, none of SUL's disclosure applications were necessary for the just disposal of the proceedings and were reasonable and proportionate.