Latest Cases

Solicitor – Disciplinary proceedings. The appellant in-house solicitor for a newspaper appealed against the finding of the Solicitors' Disciplinary Tribunal (the SDT) that he was guilty of failing to act with integrity and knowingly allowing the judge to be misled in the conduct of litigation. The Divisional Court, in allowing the appeal in part, held that the judge had been misled. The SDT, having disavowed making any finding of dishonesty, could not properly proceed to make a finding that the appellant had knowingly allowed the judge to be misled. However, it was inevitable that the SDT would have found him guilty on the basis that he had recklessly allowed the judge to be misled. 

Pension – Pension scheme. The first claimant nurse successfully brought a claim against the NHS business services authority, contending that she had not been informed by her employer, the NHS trust, that her pension entitlements had fully accrued by a certain date and, as a result, that she had been deprived of the opportunity of taking her pension from that point. A pension ombudsman made findings of maladministration by the authority, as administrator of the relevant pension scheme. The Chancery Division, in dismissing the authority's appeal, held that the ombudsman had been entitled to make the finding of maladministration which he had against the authority on the basis that he had. The authority was guilty of maladministration which had caused the loss suffered by the employee. 

Contract – Termination. A Brazilian firm (Fibria) sought to cancel a contract with a South Korean company (the company), which was in administration. The contract was governed by English law. The company submitted that, on the true construction of the Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006, SI 2006/1030, Fibria could not cancel the contract. The Companies Court held that, on the proper construction of the Regulations, it had no power to order a stay in relation to Fibria's entitlement to serve a termination notice under the contract, nor could it make an order restraining Fibria from serving such a notice. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. The patient suffered a stroke which left him incapacitated and unable to manage his own affairs. There were two applicants to the court of protection who sought to manage his affairs. The Court of Protection chose the candidate proposed by a support network of friends and neighbours, who represented the status quo in terms of being the persons in whom the patient had placed trust and confidence immediately before he became incapacitated. 

European Union – Community aid. The Court of Justice of the European Union held that the first paragraph of art 33 of Regulation 2419/2001 had to be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of intentional irregularity found in an area aid application, the farmer was to be refused all of the aid to which that farmer would have been entitled under the aid scheme concerned by the application and for which the crop group concerned by that irregularity had been eligible. 

Negligence – Medical negligence. The claimant brought a personal injury claim in negligence against the defendant NHS Trust in respect of three operations for Dupuytren's contracture of the left non dominant hand, palm, little finger and ring finger. Taking into account the evidence, on balance of probabilities, the Queen's Bench Division held that the claimant had proven part of his case but had failed in resepct of another part. The parties had agreed the appropriate level of damages in the light of this finding. 

Police – Discipline. The claimant police officers issued judicial review proceedings, challenging the refusal of their appeals against the continued imposition of the service confidence procedure (SCP) against them. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the decisions had sufficient public law element. However, the circumstances which led to a decision to invoke the SCP required that the court not intervene in the absence of very exceptional circumstances and that threshold had not been met. There was no patent and unanswerable illogicality/irrationality/unfairness in the defendant's decisions. 

Employment – Continuity. The employment judge, in determining whether the first respondent had transferred from the second respondent to the appellant when there had been a service provision change from the former to the latter, found that there had been an organised grouping. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in allowing the appeal, held that the reasons had not disclosed that the judge had engaged with the appellant's case and, if so, what conclusions had been reached in that respect. Further, it had been unclear whether the judge had applied the correct test. Accordingly, the matter would be remitted to a fresh tribunal. 

Immigration – Detention. The claimant Guinean national sought damages, declarations and an order for an inquiry for her unlawful immigration detention. The Administrative Court granted her claim. Accordingly, the claimant was entitled to damages, but an investigation into the circumstances of the claimant's detention would not be ordered, as they were well documented. 

Income tax – Emoluments from office or employment. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (the tribunal) ruled upon issues arising out of a decision by the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (the FTT) concerning a number of assessments for PAYE and national insurance contributions served on the taxpayers in respect of certain sub-trusts established in the name of individual employees of companies in the Murray group (the taxpayers). The tribunal dismissed the taxpayers' appeals, save in respect of certain termination payments, which would be remitted to the FTT for the purpose, amongst other things, of proceeding as accords in relation to those payments.