Latest Cases

Conflict of interest – Public service contracts. An appeal challenging the quashing of a conviction for conflict of interest, concerning the first respondent Vice Prime Minister of Mauritius (J), was dismissed. J was a shareholder and former director of a company which, some years following his resignation as a director, had been awarded a public contract concerning a hospital project. His sister was a director and shareholder of the company. The Privy Council construed s 13(2) and (3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 2002 and held, among other things, that the Supreme Court of Mauritius had correctly concluded that J's decision to approve a reallocation of funds, concerning the hospital project, at the stage after funds had been identified, after the payment deadline had been determined and the contract had been awarded, and after the contract amount had been determined, had not been a decision in which his sister had had any personal interest.

Tax – Taxpayer notice. Paragraph 1 of Sch 36 to the Finance Act 2008 authorised a taxpayer notice to be issued and sent to a taxpayer who, at the relevant time, had been resident outside the UK. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the Revenue and Customs Commissioners' appeal, further held that the sending of a taxpayer's notice to the respondent in Dubai had not been shown to contravene any international obligation of the UK.

Extradition – Right of retrial. Where an individual had been convicted, but that conviction was not final because he had an unequivocal right to a retrial after surrender, he was correctly classified as a convicted person, not an accused person, pursuant to s 14 of the Extradition Act 2003, for the purposes of considering the 'passage of time' bar to surrender. The Supreme Court further held that art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights provided an appropriate and effective alternative means of addressing passage of time resulting in injustice or oppression in cases where the defendant had been convicted in absentia.

Sentence – Culpability. The instant case was not a clear case that could be categorised by the factor 'a significant degree of planning' as determinative of culpability, but the defendant's pursuit of the victim had been significant in a different way. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in dismissing the appellant's appeal against an extended sentence of 15 years' imprisonment, held that, while the sentences imposed would be regarded as being at the very highest end of the range, they were not manifestly excessive.

Extradition – Right of retrial. Where an individual had been convicted, but that conviction was not final because he had an unequivocal right to a retrial after surrender, he was correctly classified as a convicted person, not an accused person, pursuant to s 14 of the Extradition Act 2003, for the purposes of considering the 'passage of time' bar to surrender. The Supreme Court further held that art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights provided an appropriate and effective alternative means of addressing passage of time resulting in injustice or oppression in cases where the defendant had been convicted in absentia.

Sentence – Young offender. The judge's approach could not be seriously criticised and the sentence passed of 9 years' detention in a young offender institution for manslaughter committed when he was 17 could not be described as manifestly excessive. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in dismissing the defendant's appeal, rejected his contention that the judge had failed to give adequate weight to the overarching principles as set out in the guideline for children and young people.

Environmental protection – Road and adjacent land – Litter abatement order. Sheriff Court: In an action in which the pursuer asked the court to make a litter abatement order in relation to an 6.8-mile stretch of the A96 dual carriageway in Aberdeenshire, the court was not satisfied that the pursuer had proved his case with regard to the area to which his complaint related, namely the entire 6.8-mile stretch of road and on that basis it refused his crave for a litter abatement order: and in any event the defenders had proved that it was not practicable for them to comply with their duties under s 89(1) and (2) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 with regard to the entirety of that stretch of road at all times.

Sentence – Pre-sentence report. The judge should have obtained a pre-sentence report before proceeding to sentence the defendant to 12 months' imprisonment for an offence of affray to which he had pleaded guilty and the judge should have suspended the sentence. As the defendant had served six months' imprisonment, the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that it would not be right to suspend the sentence so that the defendant had hanging over his head the prospect of re-imposition of the sentence should he re-offend and substituted a sentence of six months.

Civil procedure – Order for inspection of documents – Recall of order. Court of Session: In an application in which the noter sought recall of order for inspection of documents, granted on the ex parte application of the petitioner in proceedings for that purpose under s 1 of the Administration of Justice (Scotland) Act 1972, on the basis of a failure to disclose material information to the court at the time of the grant of the order, the court refused the motion for recall in relation to the grounds in the petition which were unaffected by the nondisclosure and put the matter out for a further hearing confined to consideration of that part of the motion that remained (ie that part of the petitioner's case to which the nondisclosure related).

Misrepresentation – Fraudulent misrepresentation. The claimant's claim failed, in a dispute concerning the purchase of the Spanish headquarters of the Santander bank. The Commercial Court held that the Royal Bank of Scotland which, along with the defendant banks, had helped to finance the purchase, had not made false representations concerning the integrity of the process of setting EURIBOR on its own account and as agent for the defendants. The defendants were entitled to declarations that they had acted lawfully.