R (on the application of Parratt) v Secretary of State for Justice and another

Prison Prisoner. The Administrative Court made a declaration that the claimant prisoner's rights under art5(4) of the European Convention had been infringed by the delay of the Parole Board in holding the claimant's post-tariff review. The claimant's other claims, including claims for damages, were dismissed.

Schomberg and another v Taylor and others

Will Beneficiary. The Chancery Division considered a will, which was alleged to have been produced by undue influence on the part of P, an individual whose children were to receive the residue of the testatrix's estate. The court held that P had exerted undue influence over the testator at a time when she was physically and mentally infirm. Consequently, a pronouncement would be made against the will, and an earlier will would be accepted.

Entrust Pension Ltd v Prospect Hospice Ltd and another

Pension Pension scheme. The Chancery Division previously gave judgment finding that the previous trustee of a pension scheme had had a duty to consider adding a share of surplus in respect of a deferred member's pension at the date when the member left service. The trustee of the scheme sought the court's determination on outstanding issues. The court held that the previous trustee had complied with that duty for most of the relevant period and ruled on the date on which a new policy had been implemented.

Bank of Scotland v Qutb (in his personal capacity and as administrator of the estate of Mona Qutb)

Costs Order for costs. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, made an order for costs against a man personally and in his capacity as administrator of his late mother's estate, in circumstances where he had managed and maintained the trial of an action in the capacity of his mother's litigation friend after his mother had died.

Nationwide Building Society v Davisons Solicitors

Solicitor Duty. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed an appeal by the defendant firm of solicitors against a judgment of the High Court, in which it had been found that the defendant had acted in breach of trust and breach of contract, in circumstances where, due to a deception by the seller's solicitors, the defendant building society had been unable to obtain a charge on a property.

J Council v GU (by his litigation friend, the Official Solicitor) and others

Mental health Persons who lack capacity. The Court of Protection approved an agreed final order requiring the patient to live at a care home. The court held that, in the circumstances, the interferences with G's private life, including monitoring of his correspondence and telephone calls, were in compliance with art8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

An NHS Trust v DJ (by his litigation friend, the Official Solicitor) and others

Medical treatment Withdrawal of treatment. The Court of Protection held that it would not be appropriate to make the declaration sought by the application NHS trust. It held that the withholding of the stated treatments would not be in the patient's best interests.

Davies v Watkins

Trust and trustee Trustee's costs. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in proceedings brought by the executor of an estate, held that a costs order in Beddoe proceedings had been wrong in law and the result of an implicit misdirection. It was declared that the claimant was entitled to an indemnity out of the estate for his costs of the Beddoe application, up to the date of a consent order.

*RM v Scottish Ministers

Statute Commencement. The Supreme Court, in allowing the appellant's appeal, held that the failure by the Scottish Ministers to draft and lay regulations under s268 (11) and (12) of the before the Scottish Parliament prior to 1 May 2006, and their continued failure to have done so since that date, had been unlawful.

Smith v Trafford Housing Trust

Costs Order for costs. The Chancery Division had previously found that the claimant had been wrongfully demoted from his position with a housing trust as a result of postings on his Facebook page. The parties sought the quantification of his damages and the trust sought its costs, as a result of the claimant's failure to accept a more advantageous offer. The court awarded the claimant damages of 98, together with interest of 4.10 and found that justice would be served by making no order for costs.