Latest Cases

Costs – Employment tribunal. The employment tribunal struck out the employee's claim, due to non-compliance with an unless order, and awarded costs against the employee. The Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed the appeal against the costs order on the ground that it had been unclear as to whether the tribunal had exercised any independent scrutiny of the sums claimed by the employer. If it had done so, the judgment had not adequately disclosed its reasoning in that regard. Accordingly, the matter would be remitted to the same tribunal for rehearing on the question of the amount of the award of costs only. 

Employment – Discrimination. The employment tribunal had dismissed the employee's claim for disability discrimination, but had awarded the employee arrears of pay which he had not claimed for. The Employment Appeal Tribunal in dismissing the employee's appeal against the tribunal's rejection of his claim, ruled that there had been no discrimination or breach of duty to make reasonable adjustments as the employer trust's act of refusing to allow the employer to return to work as a consultant was not a disability discrimination under s 15 Equality Act 2010 and was justified as a proportionate means of protecting patients. The EAT however remitted the arrears of pay award to the same tribunal having found substantive and procedural irregularities and errors of law in the making of that award. 

Immigration – Refugee. The claimants, T and N, were Iraqi refugees who had taken refuge in Syria and their cases were referred to the Secretary of State for consideration of their resettlement to the United Kingdom. Their applications were refused on the ground that their resettlement in the UK would not be conducive to the public good. The Secretary of State maintained the decision and the claimants sought judicial review. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the attempt to impose an obligation upon the Secretary of State to consider their applications in accordance with the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees 1951 was unnecessary and would be contrary to the preservation of absolute flexibility. 

Solicitor – Negligence. The claimant had instructed the defendant solicitors to act for her in purchasing a property. The solicitors did not advise her about restrictive covenants that affected the property. She carried out works in breach of the covenants and the neighbour with the benefit of the covenants complained. The claimant instructed the defendants to act for her. They did not, for some time, advise her to stop all works on the property but, when they did, she continued the works and the neighbour took out an injunction. The Recorder found the defendant had failed to make clear that the works had to stop and that, had the claimant known of the covenants, she would not have gone ahead with the purchase. Damages were awarded. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the Recorder had erred in finding that the bringing of the injunction proceedings had been caused by the defendant's negligence, but that his conclusion that the claimant would not have gone ahead with the purchase had been correct. The appeal against the calculation of damages was successful in part. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant was convicted of an offence against his family in Poland and sentenced to a suspended sentence. He came to reside in the United Kingdom, where he worked and had a fiancée, with whom he had an 18 month old daughter. The respondent judicial authority sought the appellant's return to Poland to serve his sentence and the district judge made an order for his extradition. The appellant appealed. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the hardship which extradition would cause the appellant did not amount to exceptional hardship and that it was not sufficient to outweigh the public interest in extradition. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against the judge's decision to send his case to the Secretary of State for her to decide whether he should be extradited to Albania following his convictions there for premeditated murder and possession of firearms. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the appeal, followed the decision of the High Court of Justiciary Appeal Court in Kapri v Lord Advocate ([2014] HCJAC 33), which found that there was no evidence of judicial corruption in Albania, as it was not demonstrably wrong or substantially undermined by evidence not before that court. Further, there was no basis for the appellant to assert that he would not receive a re-trial, given the guarantee by the Albanian Ministry of Justice. 

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. 

European Union – Legal basis of regulation. The Court of Justice of the European Union granted the action brought by Moallem Insurance Co for: (i) annulment of the European Council which had listed the applicant in Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP (concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP); (ii) annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1264/2012 (implementing Regulation (EU) 267/2012 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) 961/2010) in so far as it had listed the applicant in Annex IX to Regulation 267/2012; and (iii) a declaration that art 12 of Decision 2010/413 and art 35 of Regulation 267/2012 were inapplicable to it. 

Patent – Infringement. The defendant company, LEO, owned two pharmaceutical patents. The claimant company, TEVA, opposed both of the patents on the grounds that they were, among other things, obvious. The Chancery Division, Patents Court, held that, given a prior United States patent, the two patents were obvious. 

Court of Appeal – Leave to appeal. Following the claimant's success at first instance, the defendant sought permission to appeal. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, imposed conditions on the defendant's application and ordered it to pay security for costs.