Latest Cases

Divorce – Decree nisi. The Queen's Proctor applied to set aside a decree nisi granted to the parties by the county court, which had later been made absolute, contending that both decrees were void, by reason of non-compliance with s 1(2)(d) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. The application had been made in circumstances where errors had been made by the court staff and the court, and where the parties had, on the strength of the decrees, remarried. The Family Court ruled that the decrees were voidable (not void), that neither decree would be set aside, with the consequence that the decree absolute remained valid and in force, and that the decree nisi should be varied in accordance with FPR 4.1(6) to reflect an amendment to the divorce petition.

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The defendant's challenge to the jurisdiction of the English court failed, in a dispute between two Russian businessmen. The Commercial Court held that the claimant had established a good arguable case that the defendant was domiciled in England, the courts of which accordingly had jurisdiction over all of his claims, both in contract and tort.

Extradition – Specialty. The judge had not made the wrong decision in ordering the appellants' extradition to Poland to be prosecuted for robbery with violence. The Administrative Court rejected the appellants' arguments that the judge had erred in concluding that their surrender: (i) did not contravene s 17 of the Extradition Act 2003; (ii) was not an abuse of process; (iii) was not unjust or oppressive by virtue of passage of time; and (iv) would not be disproportionate in light of their rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Extradition – Double jeopardy. The judge had been right to reject the double jeopardy bar to the appellant's extradition to France for a single offence of premeditated conspiracy to commit VAT fraud. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the appellant's appeal against orders for his extradition, further held that the authorities in the present jurisdiction and in France were both ready, willing and able to respond appropriately to obviate the risk of self-harm or suicide.

Administrative law – Legitimate expectation. It would be unfair for the first defendant First Minister both to retain the political capital of the announcement that the work necessary to establish the investigation into his actions and decisions in relation to Carl Sargeant's departure from his post as Cabinet Secretary for Communities and Children and thereafter would be undertaken independently from his office, and to retain the power to decide what the arrangements for the investigation should be. The Divisional Court, in allowing the claimant widow's application for judicial review, held that, because of the First Minister's press statement, it had been unlawful for him to do that.

Immigration – Asylum. The defendant Secretary of State had not erred in certifying the claimant Vietnamese national's asylum claim as clearly unfounded and the judge had been correct in his conclusion affirming that decision. However, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the claimant had been wrongfully detained between 18 August 2015 and 14 September 2015, and was entitled to substantive damages, as it could not be concluded that continued detention would have been justifiable on the 'very exceptional circumstances' basis.

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Commercial Court considered a worldwide freezing order and search orders obtained in aid of enforcement of an arbitral award for USD $1.3bn made by a Minnesota-seated tribunal. The court held that, among other things, it was appropriate for the freezing order to continue, and that the search orders would not be set aside.

Solicitor – Disciplinary proceedings. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (the SDT) had been plainly right not to depart from the starting point of suspension of the appellant for four instances of acting without integrity. The Administrative Court, in dismissing his appeal against suspension from practice for two years, held that the quantum of suspension was a matter quintessentially for the SDT, which could not be interfered with on appeal, as the exercise of discretion could be shown to have gone completely off the rails.

Civil procedure – Solicitors – Interdict from acting – Confidential information. Court of Session: In a petition in which the petitioner sought to interdict a firm of solicitors from acting for her husband in divorce proceedings, contending it was inappropriate for them to continue to act because of the risk of disclosure of information confidential to her which might be relevant in the proceedings and knowledge of which was potentially prejudicial to her interests, the court held that the solicitors were in possession of information confidential to the petitioner and to the disclosure of which she had not consented, the safeguards they had instituted were not sufficient to reduce the risks of disclosure of confidential information to an acceptable level, and the petitioner was therefore entitled to the grant of interdict.

Heritable property – Title conditions – Real burden – Validity of burden. Sheriff Appeal Court: Allowing an appeal, which concerned the effectiveness of the land-owning model of property maintenance in Scotland, by a pursuer which had raised actions seeking payment from the defenders of their respective shares of the costs of maintaining the amenity areas of a development in Dundee, the defenders' properties being burdened in terms of a clause of a Deed of Conditions by an obligation to pay a share of the maintenance costs incurred by the pursuer in maintaining the Open Ground, of which it was heritable proprietor, within the development, the court held that the sheriff had erred in law in concluding that the clause of the Deed of Conditions was invalid, in terms of s 3(7) of the Title Conditions (Scotland) Act 2003, as having the effect of creating a monopoly.