Latest Cases

Employment tribunal – Procedure. The employment tribunal allowed the employee's claims that the employer was liable for disability discrimination by proceeding with a disciplinary hearing and an internal appeal, but found that all other complaints of disability discrimination were not well-founded. The employee's request for a review was refused. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in dismissing the employee's appeal against the refusal of a review, held that the tribunal judge had not committed any error of law in approaching the review. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against the order for his extradition to the Czech Republic on the basis that it would be an abuse of process. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the extradition process had not been abused. There was nothing to suggest that the injustice to the appellant of having been tried, convicted and sentenced in his absence on the erroneous premise that he had been a fugitive from justice had been the result of anything other than incompetence on the part of the Czech authorities. There was no material which suggested that they had been motivated by bad faith. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union allowed the action brought by Lidl Siftung & Co. KG (Lidl) for annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market concerning opposition proceedings between A Colmeia do Minho Ldª and Lidl regarding the application by Lidl for registration of a figurative sign depicting the word 'FAIRGLOBE' as a Community trade mark. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The Divisional Court allowed the appellant judicial authority's appeal against the judge's discharge of the respondent's extradition to Spain to face trial for playing a leading role in a conspiracy to smuggle 800kg of cannabis to the United Kingdom, as the judge's conclusion on proportionality could not stand. However, it dismissed the respondent's cross-appeal, as he had produced no evidence at all of reasonable grounds to believe that the sole reason for the failure to charge or to try him had been his absence from Spain. 

Contract – Property. The defendant introduced a scheme to encourage small-scale low carbon generation installations. It amended the scheme by a proposal. Judicial review proceedings concluded that the proposal was unlawful. The claimants brought a claim maintaining that the damage was done to them by the simple making of the proposal. They sought damages against the defendant pursuant to art 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights (A1P1) on the basis that the proposal was an unjustified interference with their peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. The Queen's Bench determined certain preliminary issues and decided that, as a matter of general principle, the claimants would be able to recover damages for the wrongful interference with their possessions. 

Contract – Breach of contract. The claimant surveyors sought contribution, under the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978, from the defendant solicitors in respect of money they had paid to a mortgage lending company in settlement of its claim for damages for negligent over-valuation of a property. The Chancery Division, in allowing the surveyors claim, held that the solicitors had breached their duty to report a discrepancy between the purchase price of the property and the valuation provided by the claimant to the lender. On the facts, there would be equal apportionment of responsibility. 

Pleading – Amendment. The defendant company sought to amend its CPR Pt 20 breach of contract claim against the third party company to include a negligence claim. The Queen's Bench Division, in allowing the application, held that, although the claim was statute-barred, the new claim framed in negligence arose out of the substantially the same facts. The factors against the exercise of discretion to amend were outweighed and the defendant would be permitted to amend, pursuant to CPR 17.4(2). 

Employment – Discrimination against a woman. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT), in dismissing the employee's appeal against the rejection by the employment tribunal of her claims for maternity discrimination, indirect sex discrimination and constructive dismissal, found that although the tribunal had erred factually in its approach to constructive dismissal, its conclusion on the facts had been plainly and obviously right. The EAT also made some observations about the procedure to be adopted where the parties found it difficult to agree bundles for use at the EAT. 

Arbitration – Award. Following a dispute between the parties, the claimant company, Diag, succeeded against the defendant Czech Republic in an arbitration. It sought to enforce the arbitration award in a number of countries, including Austria. The Supreme Court of Austria held that the award had not yet become binding on the parties. Diag, sought to enforce the award in the English court. The court held that the Supreme Court of Austria's decision gave rise to an issue estoppel that would prevent Diag from enforcing the judgment in the English court. 

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.