Latest Cases

Employment – Termination. The Employment Appeal Tribunal found that the employment tribunal had not erred in finding that ss 57A and 99 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 did not apply to the employee's case. The tribunal had been entitled to reach the conclusion that it had done, and the employee's appeal would be dismissed. 

Employment – Remuneration. The employer had refused to pay the employees a day's wages in circumstances where they had attended an agreed pick-up point, but had refused to be driven to work on a road which was closed due to snow. The employment tribunal rejected the employees' claims that they had suffered a detriment in breach of their rights under s 44 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, which was concerned with matters of health and safety, and that they had suffered and unlawful deduction from wages. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in allowing the employees' appeal in part, found that the tribunal had not provided sufficient reasons for its decision. It rejected a further argument that the employees were entitled to be paid from 8am on the day in question on the basis that they had attended the pick-up point in accordance with instructions. The matter was remitted for a re-hearing. 

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. 

Costs – Employment tribunal. The employee's claims were struck out and the tribunal judge ordered that he should pay the whole of the employer's costs of the proceedings, to be assessed by the county court. The employee appealed, submitting that the judge had taken into account the substantial bill of costs incurred by the employer's in-house solicitor. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in dismissing the employee's appeal, held, inter alia, that a receiving party could claim costs where he was legally represented by a qualified employee and that the definition within rule 38(3) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2004 had not placed any artificial restriction on such a claim. 

Adoption – Application. The applicant de-facto step-father, who was in a close personal relationship with the mother, applied to the court to adopt her two children. Each child had a different father. The trial judge refused the application and the father appealed. The Court of Appeal (Civil Division) allowed the appeal and held that the judge had fallen into substantial error in his evaluation of the balance of rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and, hence, the overall proportionality of making adoption orders. In addition the judge appeared to have misinterpreted the statutory regime under the Adoption and Children Act 2002 and the requirements that it had placed upon him. 

Social security – Housing benefit. The claimants challenged reg B13(5) of the Housing Benefit Regulations 2006, SI 2006/213 on the basis that it was manifestly without reasonable foundation not to make provision for an extra bedroom where a disabled child in a housing benefit claimant's family was a person who required overnight care from a non-resident carer. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the means employed by the housing benefit scheme to achieve the government's policy objective had not been inappropriate or disproportionate in its adverse effects. 

Arbitration – Appeal. The claimant, PEC, was a company owned by the President of India.The defendant company, AGR, was a Thailand-based rice trader. PEC appealed under s 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996 against a finding by the GAFTA First-tier Tribunal that a purchase agreement had been concluded between the parties, through two individuals, R and J, on behalf of PEC, for the purchase of rice by PEC and that PEC were liable to pay AGR $6.25m. The Commercial Court, allowing the appeal, held that R and J had not had actual or apparent authority to conclude the purchase agreement, and that PEC had not made any arbitration agreement relating thereto. 

Practice – Summary judgment. In the course of proceedings concerning the purchase of shares in a gaming company, the claimant company applied for summary judgment. The Commercial Court held that the claimant was entitled to a declaration reflecting that the first defendant company had no realistic prospect of defending the costs and expenses elements of litigation in Italy. 

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. 

Contract – Penalty. The claimant company sought a remedy against the defendants for breaches by the defendants of their restrictive covenants following the sale of a business by the defendants. The Queen's Bench Division held that in the context of the non-compete covenants the defendants had been in partial breach of the non-compete covenant and the claimant was entitled to judgment for damages to be assessed.