Latest Cases

Costs – Employment tribunal. The Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed the employee's appeal against an award of costs made against him by the employment tribunal. The EAT found that the tribunal had erred in law as it was not possible to tell from the tribunal's reasons whether it had taken into account a potentially relevant matter, namely the employee's means. The matter was remitted to the tribunal. 

European Union – Reference to European Court. The Court of Justice of the European Union considered a request for a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of the provisions of the Sixth Council Directive (EEC) 77/388, as amended by Council Directive (EC) 95/7. The request arose during proceedings between the applicant in the main proceedings and the French Minister for Economic Affairs and Finance, concerning the refusal to refund to the applicant the value added tax which it had paid in France for work which had been carried out in France. 

Income tax – Emoluments from office or employment. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (the tribunal) ruled upon issues arising out of a decision by the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (the FTT) concerning a number of assessments for PAYE and national insurance contributions served on the taxpayers in respect of certain sub-trusts established in the name of individual employees of companies in the Murray group (the taxpayers). The tribunal dismissed the taxpayers' appeals, save in respect of certain termination payments, which would be remitted to the FTT for the purpose, amongst other things, of proceeding as accords in relation to those payments. 

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. 

Solicitor – Negligence. The claimant company retained the defendant solicitors' firm to act in the sale of commercial premises to another company. The sale was completed at a lower price than originally agreed and the claimant issued proceedings against the defendant for negligence. The Chancery Division, in dismissing the claim, held that the relevant clauses of the sale agreement had not exposed the claimant to the risks which it asserted as the foundation of its claim against the defendant. Further, the claimant's representative had had a proper understanding of the risks inherent in the transaction, and the detail and effect of the terms of the contract. 

Contract – Condition. The claimant agreed to sell to the defendants a freehold property. The issue arose of whether the defendants were liable to pay to the claimant the VAT charge on that transaction. A summary judgment application by the claimant was allowed. An appeal by the defendants was allowed. The claimants appealed. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and held that it could be said that the parties intended that nothing was or could become payable by the defendants over and above the specified purchase price of £130,000. 

Unfair dismissal – Determination whether dismissal fair or unfair. The employer dismissed the employee for misconduct, namely dishonesty. The employment tribunal dismissed the employee's claim for unfair dismissal. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in dismissing the employee's appeal, held that the tribunal's conclusions had not been perverse. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant challenged the defendant local authority's grant of outline planning permission to the interested party for two sites. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the authority could rationally conclude that the requirements of reg 61(5) of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, SI 2010/490 had been met. Further, the authority had been entitled to rely on Natural England's withdrawal of its objections, as it had correctly done so and, in any event, the authority had been entitled to presume it had been correct. 

Costs – Assessment. The Technology and Construction Court held that the appropriate order was that the claimant should pay the defendant its costs, to be assessed on a standard basis, if not agreed, without any reduction for a failure on the part of the defendant to mediate. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The court dismissed the father's application to discharge care orders in respect of two children, E and N, and granted a placement order in respect of N. Prior to the hearing, the judge had declined to order an addendum report from the psychologist. The father appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held, inter alia, that the refusal of a further report was well within the discretion of the judge and, further, it had not been demonstrated that the judge's conclusion as to the children's best interests had been wrong on the material available.