Latest Cases

Employment tribunal – Procedure. The employment tribunal refused the employee permission to amend his claim of detrimental treatment due to trade union activities to include a claim of victimisation because, inter alia, the employee had been unable to provide a legal basis for the claim. The Employment Appeal Tribunal held, inter alia, that there was a clear legal basis for the amendment and the tribunal's refusal had been vitiated by error of law. Accordingly, the employee's appeal would be allowed and permission to amend would be granted. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. A football stadium was subject to a planning condition that only three music events could be held there per year, only one of which could fall on a Sunday. The second defendant local authority and the first defendant Secretary of State's planning inspector refused the claimant's application to vary that condition to increase the number of music events held at the stadium. The claimant sought judicial review. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that there had been no error of law in the decision. 

Shipping – Arbitration clause. The parties contracted to transport rice under bills of lading that contained a number of different arbitration clauses. The claimant sought security from the defendant, which sent a letter of understanding setting out an arbitration procedure. A dispute arose as to alleged damage to the rice. The defendant submitted that the letter was not to be relied upon in determining how the arbitration should be carried out. The Commercial Court held that the claimant had validly commenced arbitration and the arbitral tribunal had jurisdiction to determine all the claims made by the claimant under the bills of lading. 

Crown – Prerogative. The claimant Pakistani national challenged the defendant Secretary of State's refusal of a British passport to which she claimed to be entitled as a British citizen by descent. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that there had to be only one standard of proof to be applied by law in demonstrating citizenship, which applied for all purposes and the normal civil standard had to apply. Accordingly, the Secretary of State's decision had been erroneous in law and had to be quashed, as it had applied the wrong legal standard. 

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. 

Costs – Order for costs. The Administrative Court previously gave judgment on the claimant's application for a declaration that the European Commission would be in contempt of court if it had taken certain action that would have the effect of interfering with orders granting interim relief that had been made in the action. The parties sought their costs. The court held that, in all the circumstances, there should be no order for costs as between the claimant and the Commission. However, the claimant should pay 50% of the defendant Food Standards Agency's costs and no order would be made as to the other 50%. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. The patient executed a lasting power of attorney in favour of her son. The local authority sought to revoke the LPA. The son objected. The Court of Protection allowed the authority's application and also gave permission to appoint a panel under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. 

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. 

Libel and slander – Defamatory words. The Queen's Bench Division awarded the claimant doctor £45,000by way of damages for libel, following the publication of an article in the Daily Mail and Mail Online. The court held that the defamatory statements made about the claimant had not been justified, the facts and matters on which the comments had been made, had not been proved and the article could not be defended as honest comment. 

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.