Latest Cases

Employment tribunal – Procedure. The employment tribunal, in considering claims made at different times by different employees, against the background of the employer having received multiple grievances which it had investigated, had allowed certain applications by employees to amend but disallowed others. The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the tribunal's refusal of amendments to add new factual allegations could not properly be described as erroneous in law or perverse. However, the tribunal had erred in misclassifying some of the proposed amendments as new claims and had erred in its approach to proposed amendments to add claims whose facts had post-dated the original claim. Accordingly, the employees' appeal would be allowed. 

Immigration – Detention. Following the court's decision concerning the defendant Secretary of State's policy and practice in operation of the detained fast track (DFT) for determining asylum applications (see [2014] All ER (D) 113 (Jul)), the claimant sought declaratory and other relief. The Administrative Court was satisfied that declaratory relief was necessary and should refer to what was unlawful in the operation of the DFT. However, no other substantive orders on the relief sought would be made, as they were unnecessary. 

Housing – Homeless person. The appellant had been assessed by the local authority as not being in priority need of housing. The reviewing officer found that he was no more at risk than the ordinary street homeless person and dismissed the appeal. The appellant's application to the county court was rejected. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the appellant's appeal and found that the reviewing officer's mistakes regarding the statistics that demonstrated suicide risk among the street homeless had not infected the whole of his decision, which had not been perverse or irrational. Further, the reviewing officer had been entitled to conclude that the appellant's risk of relapse into drug taking did not make him especially vulnerable when compared with other street homeless people. 

Divorce – Arrangements for care and upbringing of children. Following the breakdown of their marriage and subsequent divorce, the parties participated in a financial dispute resolution on 7 November 2013. The parties were able to agree final capital apportionment between them, including the making of a pension sharing order. Two areas upon which they could not agree were whether or not there should be some 'step down' in the relatively near future in the level of periodical payments payable to the wife; and whether or not those periodical payments payable to the wife should be the subject of some ultimate term or cut off. Giving consideration to s 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, the Family Division stated that it would be totally speculative to consider a 'step down' in the relatively near future in the level of periodical payments payable to the wife or to say that they would be subject to a cut off. 

Sentence – Imprisonment. The defendants had been convicted of robbery. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, following a reference by the Attorney General pursuant to s 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, held that the judge had erred by deciding that the sentences should be discounted by 50% because he had been sentencing 'lesser offenders'. Although the defendants' precise roles in the robbery had been difficult to define, the evidence had established, at the very least, their full and significant involvement. Consequently, the sentence for each of the three defendants would be five years' imprisonment. 

Prison – Life sentence. The claimant was serving a life sentence with a 37-year tariff for the murder of a police officer. He sought judicial review of his classification as a high escape risk. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the nature of the offence and the length of his sentence were highly relevant considerations. The claimant's further arguments were completely untenable and not established by the evidence. 

European Union – Discrimination. The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that arts 45 and 49 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (the TFEU) should be interpreted as precluding legislation of a member state, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which, in the case of businesses wishing to trade in military weapons and munitions, and broker the sale and purchase of such goods, members of their statutory representation bodies or their managing partner had to hold the nationality of that member state. It was for the national court, however, to verify whether the member state which, in order to justify that legislation, relied on the derogation allowed under art 346(1)(b) of the TFEU, was able to show that such derogation was necessary in order to protect its essential security interests. 

Costs – Order for costs. The Administrative Court previously gave judgment on the claimant's application for a declaration that the European Commission would be in contempt of court if it had taken certain action that would have the effect of interfering with orders granting interim relief that had been made in the action. The parties sought their costs. The court held that, in all the circumstances, there should be no order for costs as between the claimant and the Commission. However, the claimant should pay 50% of the defendant Food Standards Agency's costs and no order would be made as to the other 50%. 

Indemnity – Construction of indemnity clause. A foundation and the trustees of the foundation's pension scheme brought proceedings against the second claimant company for negligence and other wrongdoings. The claimant companies sought to recover sums due from the defendant group (RFIB) under an indemnity. The Commercial Court held that a limitation defence would, on the facts, not succeed. However, RFIB was only liable for the settlement sums to the extent that they were in reasonable settlement of the claim for losses occurring prior to the transfer date. It was not liable insofar as the sum represented settlement of the claim for losses occurring after that date. 

Proceeds of crime – Civil recovery of proceeds of unlawful conduct. The claimant National Crime Agency sought a civil recovery order, under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, over eight properties, the proceeds of rental income, and English and Luxembourg bank accounts. The Queen's Bench Division held that, with the exception of one property, the assets were recoverable, as they had been acquired through unlawful conduct, namely, drug dealing, money laundering or VAT fraud.