Latest Cases

Unfair dismissal – Determination whether dismissal fair or unfair. The employment tribunal upheld the employee's complaint of unfair dismissal, subject to a 75% deduction under the Polkey principles and 75% contribution and dismissed his complaint for wrongful dismissal. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in allowing the employee's appeal, held that the tribunal had erred by failing to make specific findings of fact as to the misconduct alleged against the employee, both in relation to contributory fault and wrongful dismissal. Accordingly, those matters would be remitted to the same tribunal for reconsideration. 

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. 

Minor – Removal outside jurisdiction. S, aged 15, left her mother in Mexico for London with the practical and financial assistance of her father. The mother applied for a summary return of S to Mexico, but S objected on the basis that she was not receiving a reasonable education in Mexico. The Family Division, in allowing the application, held that there had been a wrongful removal or retention. While taking account of S's views, the relevant considerations pointed clearly to S returning to Mexico. 

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. 

Human rights – Inhuman or degrading treatment. The respondent judicial authority sought the appellant's return to Romania to serve a three-year sentence, which could potentially be served in the third most over-crowded Romanian prison. The senior district judge ordered the appellant's surrender to Romania and the appellant appealed. The Divisional Court ruled that to return a prisoner to serve three years in a collective cell where the personal space was approximately 1.5 metres would amount to a violation of art 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Natural justice – Judge. The appellant doctor was struck off by a Fitness to Practise Panel (FTPP). He appealed the FTPP's determination on the basis that, inter alia, he had not had a fair hearing because the legal assessor had made disclosures which, he contended, indicated actual or potential bias. The legal assessor and the judge sitting in the appeal had been members of the same barristers' chambers and had a continuing professional relationship. The appellant sought that the judge recuse himself. The judge would recuse himself on the ground that the fair-minded observer, knowing the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility that he was biased. 

Copyright – Ownership. The Chancery Division held that, on the true construction of a contract, the claimants did not own the copyrights in songs written by famous reggae musician, Bob Marley. The claim was dismissed. 

Local authority – Statutory powers. The claimant, a 16-year-old young woman, had been living with a maternal aunt and uncle, and subsequently went to stay with a paternal aunt. The defendant local authority concluded that the claimant was not a looked after child and, therefore, was not eligible for certain financial allowances. The claimant sought judicial review of the decision. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the evidence showed that the claimant was not a looked after child and that the authority had not sought to sidestep its duties. 

Contract – Breach of contract. The claimant, Credit Suisse, brought proceedings, claiming €83,196,829 from the defendant company as money allegedly due under an International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA) 2002 agreement (the master agreement) in respect of 11 transactions it had allegedly entered with the defendant. The claimant contended that it had duly terminated the master agreement after the defendant had failed to provide security due under a credit support annex. The Commercial Court held that, notwithstanding that three of the contracts, comprising six of the disputed transactions, had been outside the defendant's capacity and therefore invalid, because of warranties in additional representations in the master agreement, that did not affect Credit Suisse's rights or the defendant's obligations under the master agreement. Alternatively, the claimant was entitled in damages for breach of the warranties to the amount that they could have recovered under the master agreement if all the agreements were valid and binding on the defendant. 

Employment – Equality of treatment of men and women. The employment tribunal, in considering the employee's claim for equal pay, found that the employee's work had been of equal value to that done by a male comparator and that the employer had failed to make out the genuine material factor (GMF) defence. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in dismissing the employer's appeal, held, inter alia, that the tribunal's findings had not been shown to be unsupported by evidence nor contrary to the agreed evidence. It had been entitled to conclude that the GMF defence had not been made out.