Latest Cases

Unfair Dismissal – Constructive Dismissal. The employment tribunal had rejected the employee's claim for unfair constructive dismissal in circumstances where he had given seven months' notice of termination following the alleged breach of contract. The employee's appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal raised a short question of law in relation to s 95(1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act of 1996 as to whether the common law concept of affirmation applied in circumstances where an employee resigned giving notice exceeding the contractual minimum period of notice. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The claimants in a human rights claim regarding prison conditions in the United Kingdom had their cases struck out. They applied to have them reinstated. The Queen's Bench Division having regard to CPR 3.9 held that on the facts no relief from sanction would be granted in each of the five actions and they would consequently remain struck out. 

Employment – Disability. The employee had succeeded before the employment tribunal in his claim for disability discrimination relating to his medical condition. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in dismissing the employer's appeal, found no error in law in the tribunal's finding that the employee's severe disfigurement or physical impairment had a substantial adverse effect on the employee's ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities, thereby amounting to a disability for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010. 

Landlord and tenant – Commercial lease – Construction. Court of Session: Allowing an appeal in a dispute as to the construction of the dilapidations provisions that applied on the termination of a commercial lease, the court held that the tenants' construction of the relevant clause was to be preferred, namely that they were not obliged to make payment to the landlords of whatever sum happened to be the total of the various cost estimates contained in a schedule of dilapidations and instead the clause was intended to reflect and reinforce the common law, under which the landlords would be entitled to the actual loss they sustained, which might be calculated using a number of different methods. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. RR was an elderly lady suffering from dementia. She was being looked after at home by her son and his companion. Following a safeguarding scare, the local authority removed RR from her home without informing her son or seeking permission from the court. The Family Division made declarations to the effect that as a result there had been a breach of RR's rights under art 5 and 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights. 

Crown – Prerogative. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's rejection of her application for a replacement passport. The Secretary of State contended that the claimant was not who she claimed to be, but was the sister of that person. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the claimant had not discharged the burden upon her to establish that she was who she said she was and that she was entitled to British citizenship. Accordingly, she was not entitled to a passport. 

Judge – District judge. The defendant Judicial Appointments Commission (the JAC) rejected the claimant solicitor and deputy district judge's application for appointment as a district judge, as he had seven penalty points on his driving licence. The claimant sought judicial review. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the application, held that the JAC had been entitled to consider that public confidence in the standards of the judiciary would not be maintained if persons appointed to judicial office had more than six points endorsed on their licence. The JAC had appreciated its discretion to depart from the normal position and had not exercised it. Further, the decision had not been irrational, by virtue of the fact that the claimant continued to sit as a deputy district judge. 

Judicial review – Pharmaceutical services. Court of Session: In judicial review proceedings in which the owners of a pharmacy challenged a health board's decision authorising a medical group to provide dispensing services to all its registered patients residing in certain communities, the court held that the challenge was not barred by mora, taciturnity and acquiescence, and the decision was unlawful because the respondents misdirected themselves as to the proper construction and application of paragraph 44 of Sch 5 to the National Health Service (General Medical Services Contracts) (Scotland) Regulations 2004 and because the review and decision-making processes were conducted in a manner which was procedurally unfair to the petitioners. 

Particulars of claim – Amendment. The proceedings concerned the award of a contract to provide legal services. The claimant solicitors' firm was unsuccessful in a tendering process, and brought proceedings against the defendant Insolvency Service. It sought to amend its particulars of claim. The court dismissed the application, and the claimant appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the appeal would be allowed in respect of the amendment, and that a suspension regarding the award of the contract would be maintained regarding one of the tenderers. 

Negligence – Information or advice. The claim concerned allegedly negligent advice given by the defendant company to the claimants in relation to a loan. In the course of proceedings, HMT admitted liability. Following the admissions, the Chancery Division made findings as to the various remaining aspects of the case.