Latest Cases

Medical practitioner – Negligence. Applying settled law to the facts, the defendant doctor's standard of care had fallen below that to be properly expected of a reasonable GP. He had missed the red flags (warning signs of cauda equina syndrome) that had been there to be found concerning the claimant, whom he had seen at an out of hours surgery. Accordingly, the Queen's Bench Division held, on a preliminary issue, that the claimant had established that the defendant had been in breach of duty in failing to refer her to hospital.

Bankruptcy – Sequestration – Warrant to cite. Sheriff Court: In a petition for sequestration in which the petitioner sought warrant to cite the debtor, the sum charged for being £1,997.36 and the debt referred to in the creditor's oath being £3,539.22, the increase being vouched by unpaid invoices issued subsequent to the sums due in terms of the charge for payment, as far as the court was aware there was no binding authority of the Sheriff Appeal Court or Inner House that required it to refuse warrant to cite the debtor where the sum in the decree constituting the basis for apparent insolvency was less than £3,000; as the matter was not free from doubt it would not be appropriate to refuse warrant to cite because such a decision would preclude the petition being brought into court and prevent the petitioner exercising its right of access to the court, and it would arguably have no right of appeal against that decision.

Income tax – Aggregates levy. On the evidence, the rock excavated from the opencase gold mine owned by the taxpayer company was not 'wholly or mainly' slate for the purposes of the exemption from aggregates levy set out in s 17(4) of the Finance Act 2001. It followed that the taxpayer company was liable to pay the aggregates levy together with interest and a penalty in the amount stated in the assessment issued to it by the Revenue and Customs Commissioners. Consequently, the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) dismissed the taxpayer's appeal against the assessment.

Bank – Account. The proceedings arose from the appellants' investment in a property development scheme that had failed as a result of fraud and the insolvency of the property development promoter. The judge had erred, among other things, in holding that the letter of instruction from the property development promoter to the respondent bank, relating to the opening of a bank account for the property development scheme, was not a concluded and unconditional contract. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the appellants' appeal and held that they were entitled to recover their pleaded losses as damages, pursuant to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, for the bank's breach of contract.

Medical practitioner – Disciplinary proceedings. The General Medical Council's jurisdiction, under s 35C of the Medical Act 1983 (concerning allegations of a registered person's unfitness to practice) extended to the activities of registered doctors practising abroad. When considering whether a registrant's fitness to practise had been impaired, concerning professional duties outside the UK, a tribunal had to judge his or her behaviour by reference to UK standards, but taking into account local conditions and practices. The Administrative Court so ruled in dismissing the a doctor's appeal against the Medical Practitioners Tribunal's decision that his fitness to practise had been impaired by reason of misconduct, and to erase him from the medical register in respect of his treatment of a lymphoma patient in India, who had subsequently died.

Police – Enquiry. The claimants, who were core participants in an Undercover Policing Inquiry set up following the findings of the Stephen Lawrence Independent Review, were refused permission to judicially review a ruling to grant restriction orders under s 19 of the Inquiries Act 2005. The restriction orders prohibited disclosure of the 'cover names' of 10 former undercover police officers. The Administrative Court held that all the points raised by the claimants were unarguable.

Road traffic – Driving while unfit to drive through drink or drugs. There had been insufficient evidence before the justices to enable them to convict the appellant of being in charge of a motor vehicle whilst unfit through drink, contrary to s 4(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The Administrative Court, in allowing the appellant's appeal by way of case stated and quashing the conviction, accepted his contention that the prosecution had not adduced sufficient evidence for any reasonable tribunal properly directed to conclude that the car park had been a 'road or other public place', within the meaning of s 4(2).

Practice – Summary judgment. The defendant firm of solicitors succeeded in its application for relief from sanctions, to set aside a judgment in default of a defence, and for summary judgment, concerning the claimant's action, alleging negligence in respect of representation he had received in his murder trial. The Queen's Bench Division held that the overall circumstances of the case clearly justified relief from sanctions and that the claimant's action could not proceed, because it had no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the claim was dismissed. The court further held that the proceedings brought by the claimant were an abuse of process, because they constituted a collateral attack on his conviction for murder as affirmed by the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division.

Sentence – Sexual offences. There had been an insufficient basis for the judge to make a finding of dangerousness against the defendant and to impose an extended sentence of 15 years, comprising a custodial term of 12 years and an extended licence period of 3 years for a series of sexual offences, including indecent assault and rape. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, allowed the appeal and substituted a determinate sentence of 12 years' imprisonment.

Income tax – Relief. The taxpayer incorporated pension scheme (BӒV) was not a 'public service pension scheme' for the purposes of s 154(2) of the Finance Act 2004 and was therefore not eligible to be registered under s 153 of that Act because it had been established by an enactment of a foreign legislative body, namely the Bavarian Parliament. It followed that the legislation was overtly discriminatory and in breach of the prohibition of restrictions on the movement of capital in art 63 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Consequently, the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) allowed BAV's appeal against closure notices issued by the Revenue and Customs Commissioners in response to the claim by BAV's investment fund for repayment of income tax obtained from investment income, which a UK registered pension scheme would have been exempt from.