Latest Cases

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. 

Human Rights – Infringement of human rights. The present proceedings concerned the assessment of damages for the defendant Metropolitan Police Commissioner's breach of the Human Rights Act 1998, by failing to conduct an effective investigation into the rapes and other sexual assaults carried out by a third party. The Queen's Bench Division, taking into account the claimants' settlement of proceedings against the third party and damages awarded by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, awarded the first claimant £22,250 and the second claimant £19,000. 

Immigration – Asylum. Court of Session: Refusing a judicial review petition in which the petitioner, who accepted that he had not stated additional grounds until served with a refusal of his wife's claim, sought reduction of a decision to certify his asylum claim so as to deny a right of appeal, the court held that at the earliest possible stage the petitioner knew he had to disclose the whole truth and plainly did not do so; the respondent had correctly exercised her discretion and had given reasons for her decision, having fully explored all the proper issues; she was not bound to take account of Country of Origin information and did not err in the way the wife's case was considered. 

Damages – Personal injury. The claimant had been a learning support assistant whose duties had included pushing a student in her wheelchair. The claimant sustained a soft tissue injury that caused her chronic pain in her shoulder and back. Her claim for damages for personal injury from the school was dismissed, with the recorder finding that there had been no breach of reg 4 of the Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992, SI 1992/2793. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that there had been no error in the recorder's approach, reasoning or conclusion and dismissed the appeal. 

Solemn procedure – Time bar. High Court of Justiciary: Allowing an appeal against a sheriff's decision granting two applications to extend retrospectively the 11 and 12-month time limits in relation to two petitions on which the appellant appeared in 2008 and 2010, which the Crown sought because it wished to add the charges contained in those petitions to an indictment in June 2013, the court held that the sheriff's decision was flawed in several respects and there was no evident basis in the history of the proceedings for granting any extension. 

Employment – Remuneration. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (the EAT) dismissed the employer's argument, amongst other things, that the employment tribunal had been wrong to hold that the indirect discrimination that the National Minimum Wage Regulations 1999, SI 1999/584 had created by providing, in the exemption set out in reg 12(8), more favourable access to employment opportunities for United Kingdom students than for non-UK students had been justified. The EAT decided that the tribunal had been entitled to conclude that the discriminatory effects had been justified as being in pursuit of a legitimate aim. 

European Union – Freedom of movement. The European Court of Justice Union ruled that art 41(1) of the Additional Protocol concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Community by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2760/72 and annexed to the Association Agreement had to be interpreted as meaning that the 'standstill' clause set out in that provision precluded a measure of national law, introduced after the entry into force of that additional protocol in the member state concerned, which imposed on spouses of Turkish nationals residing in that member state, who wished to enter the territory of that state for the purposes of family reunification, the condition that they demonstrate beforehand that they had acquired basic knowledge of the official language of that member state. 

Indemnity – Negligence. Following a flood at a recently constructed block of flats, the building owner commenced proceedings against the main contractor which led to a series of claims against the chain of sub-contractors. The judge found that the mechanical sub-sub-sub-contractor (Robson) had been liable for two defects in workmanship which had been the principal cause of the flood with the result that the Robson was liable under the indemnity clause contained in the agreement by which it had been engaged by HSE. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, upheld that decision and found that HSE's failure to inspect the work properly, even when the breaches should have been detected upon a reasonable inspection of the work, had not shut out its claim under the indemnity. It could not have been presumed that the parties had intended to confine the indemnity clause only to workmanship breaches which had been invisible upon reasonable inspection. 

National Health Service – Health authority. The claimant issued proceedings for judicial review, seeking a ruling that the defendant clinical commissioning group (the CCG) had an obligation, under s 3 of the National Health Service Act 2006, to provide her with accommodation as part of the health care package with which it should provider her free of charge under the NHS. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that, given pending Court of Protection proceedings to determine the claimant's capacity, it was too early to say that the CCG was bound in law to find that the claimant had a reasonable requirement of accommodation which needed to be met out of NHS resources. 

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.