Latest Cases

Contempt of court – Civil contempt. The Commercial Court held that the defendant (M) was in contempt of court in communicating with a bank by letter. The comments that he had made in the letter, to the effect that a third party company had suffered from 'complete anarchy' in its management, were sufficient for contempt of court to be made out in that regard.

Constitutional law – Interim order. A conservatory order was not the only interim order available in constitutional proceedings. The tri-partite test in RJR-Macdonald Inc v A-G of Canada [1994] 1 SCR 311 (including whether there was a serious issue to be tried) was appropriate when considering interim relief in constitutional cases. The Privy Council so ruled in dismissing of an appeal concerning constitutional and judicial review proceedings brought by the appellant, who had been remanded in an adult women's prison in Trinidad at the age of 16, having been charged with murder. The Privy Council, in dismissing the appellant's appeal, held that the Court of Appeal had made the only order which it could have made ( to the effect that the Attorney General should provide a suitable community residence and transfer the appellant to it). That order was one which best resolved the conflict between the Bail Act 1994, which held that a person charged with murder could not be granted bail, and the non-availability of a suitable community residence.

Sentence – Murder. The first offender's sentence of 14 years and 6 months' imprisonment consecutive to a term of three years' imprisonment he had already been serving was substituted by a sentence of 18-and-a-half years' imprisonment for violent disorder, conspiracy to commit violent disorder and attempted murder. However, the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, did not interfere with the sentence of 13 years' imprisonment imposed on the second offender for conspiracy to commit violent disorder and attempted murder.

Family Proceedings – Fact Finding. The finding of a failure by the mother to protect the children would be overturned. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that there was no evidence which could properly lead to a finding that the mother had failed to protect her children.

Damages – Personal injury. Causation had been established in respect of the claimant's personal injury claim against the defendant general practitioner, following the death of the claimant's wife (the deceased) on 26 April 2014. The defendant had admitted breaching of his duty of care to the deceased by failing to refer her directly to the hospital when she had attended a health centre on 25 April, but he had denied causation. Damages had been agreed between the parties. The Queen's Bench Division held that the evidence demonstrated, on the clear balance of probabilities, that the deceased would have survived had she been referred to the hospital at the relevant time.

Privilege – Legal professional privilege. In proceedings arising from the use of phone hacking as a journalistic tool, the defendant newspaper owner asserted legal professional privilege in relation to two pieces of evidence, the Partington note and the Grigson comments, and sought injunctive relief. The Chancery Division held that injunctive relief might be obtained against those claimants who had pleaded reliance on the Partington note, but not the Grigson comments.

Solemn procedure – Judge's charge – Prior inconsistent statements – Sentencing. High Court of Justiciary: In an appeal against conviction and sentence by an appellant who was convicted of five charges involving lewd and libidinous practices towards his three daughters from 1976 to 1990, the court rejected a contention that the trial judge had given the jury inadequate directions on the use to be made of prior inconsistent statements, however it held that the cumulative effect of the sentences imposed on the appellant, namely 10 years' imprisonment, was excessive, and it ordered that the sentence on one of the charges should run concurrently with the other sentences, thus reducing the totality to 6 years' imprisonment.

Sentencing – Producing controlled drug – Cannabis. High Court of Justiciary: Allowing an appeal against sentence by an appellant who pled guilty to a charge of producing cannabis at his home address, paraphernalia of cultivation and 9 cannabis plants being recovered, the court held that the sheriff had misdirected herself in considering that the appellant was engaged in a large scale operation and that the enterprise was capable of producing a substantial return; the court proceed on the basis that the appellant was involved at the lower end of any cultivation enterprise and assessed the appropriate headline sentence at 18 months' imprisonment, restricted to 14 months in light of the early plea.

Sentencing – Supply of drugs – Cannabis. High Court of Justiciary: Allowing an appeal against sentence by an appellant who pled guilty to a charge of supplying cannabis resin to another with value of approximately £36,000, and on whom the sheriff imposed a sentence of 29 months' imprisonment, reduced from 32 months because of the guilty plea, the court held that when appropriate weight was given to all of the relevant circumstances, including the fact that the appellant was, for practical purposes, a first offender, and that more than two years had passed between the offence occurring and sentence being imposed, the sentence selected was excessive: the court therefore substituted a headline sentence of 15 months' imprisonment, reduced to 13 months to reflect the utilitarian value in the guilty plea.

Value added tax – Supply of goods or services. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber)(the tribunal) had correctly decided that for s 84(10) of the Value Added Tax Act 1984 to apply, the decision under appeal had to have 'depended upon a prior decision'. The provision therefore required both a 'prior decision' and that the appealed decision had 'depended' on it. Consequently, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, affirmed the tribunal's decision that in the context of the present appeal, s 84(10) did not apply; and therefore dismissed the taxpayer school's appeal. The court further distinguished Customs and Excise Comrs v JH Corbitt (Numismatists) Ltd [1980] STC 231.