Latest Cases

Unfair dismissal – Constructive dismissal. The employment tribunal allowed the employee's claim for constructive unfair dismissal on the basis that the employer's conduct of a disciplinary hearing which had resulted in the employee's dismissal had amounted to a repudiatory breach of contract. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (the EAT) upheld the employer's appeal against that decision on the grounds, amongst other things, that: (i) the tribunal had not considered whether the employee had resigned in response to that breach of contract; and (ii) the tribunal had wrongly concluded that the employee had affirmed the contract of employment. Accordingly, the matter was remitted for re-hearing before a fresh tribunal. 

Costs – Security for costs. The claimants obtained permission to appeal a judgment where the defendant's construction of a agreement was favoured by the judge. The defendant applied for security for the costs of the appeal on the basis, inter alia, that there was reason to believe that they would be unable to pay the defendant's costs of an appeal if ordered to do so. The Court of Appeal allowed the application and made an order for security for costs in the sum of £50,000. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union allowed the action brought by Lidl Siftung & Co. KG (Lidl) for annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market concerning opposition proceedings between A Colmeia do Minho Ldª and Lidl regarding the application by Lidl for registration of a figurative sign depicting the word 'FAIRGLOBE' as a Community trade mark. 

Immigration – Appeal. The proceedings concerned an appeal by the appellant against a decision of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), which had set aside the First Tier Tribunal's (FTT) decision to allow his appeal against the Secretary of State's refusal to revoke a deportation order. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appellant's appeal, held that the Upper Tribunal had not erred in law in setting aside the FTT's determination and, further, had not erred in re-deciding the issue de novo. 

Damages – Inquiry as to damages. The claimant, Jodie Henderson, was a singer, songwriter and musician. In earlier proceedings, the court had held that she was entitled to damages from the defendant for the infringement of her performer's rights in respect of a track called 'Heartbroken'. The Intellectual Property Enterprise Court conducted an inquiry as to damages and held that the claimant was entitled to total damages of £35,000. 

Trade mark – Opposition to registration. The General Court of the European Union considered the applicant company's appeal against a decision that a contested design for 'cookies' was invalid. The General Court held that, on the evidence, the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) had not erred in refusing to consider the internal appearance of the contested design, and accordingly the application would be dismissed. 

Administration of estates – Payment. Following the death of W, a locum doctor, the appellant NHS authority submitted that money had been overpaid to W's executors and needed to be returned. The deputy pensions ombudsman held that repayment was not necessary. The authority appealed. The Chancery Division held that, while the ombudsman had acted within her powers, there were no grounds for limiting the authority's entitlement to repayment to the net assets of the estate, and her decision to that effect would be set aside. 

European Union – Customs and Excise. The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that art 9(1) of Council Directive (EEC) 92/12, as amended, read in conjunction with art 7 of that directive, should be interpreted as allowing a member state to designate as liable to excise duty a person who held for commercial purposes, on the fiscal territory of that state, products subject to excise duty that had been released for consumption in another member state, in circumstances such as those of the case before the referring court, even though that person had not been the first holder of those products in the member state of destination. 

Judicial review – Challenge to validity of public authority's decision. The not-for-profit entity set up by the sixteenth great-nephew of Richard III sought judicial review of decisions relating to his exhumation and re-interment in St Martin's Cathedral, Leicester. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the application, held that consultation prior to or as a condition of the grant of the exhumation licence had been unnecessary. Further, the Secretary of State's decision not to revisit the licence had been rational and there had been no duty on the Secretary of State to consult. The court emphasised that the one issue that it was not for it to decide was where the remains of Richard III should be re-interred. 

Armed forces – Service complaints. The first defendant Army Board of the Defence Council (the panel) rejected the claimant's service complaint, contending that his career had been mismanaged. The claimant issued judicial review proceedings. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the panel had been entitled to take the view that an oral hearing had not been necessary to fairly decide the matter. Further, the 34-month delay in the determination of the complaint had not been unlawful under art 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights or at common law.