Latest Cases

Employment – Continuity. The employment judge, in determining whether the first respondent had transferred from the second respondent to the appellant when there had been a service provision change from the former to the latter, found that there had been an organised grouping. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in allowing the appeal, held that the reasons had not disclosed that the judge had engaged with the appellant's case and, if so, what conclusions had been reached in that respect. Further, it had been unclear whether the judge had applied the correct test. Accordingly, the matter would be remitted to a fresh tribunal. 

Practice – Summary judgment. The claimant bank was granted summary judgment upon its claim against the defendant, relying on the issue estoppel created by the court in an earlier judgment in the proceedings. In light of a subsequent decision by the Court of Appeal, it had become apparent that there was no such issue estoppel. Accordingly, the parties returned to the Commercial Court. The claimant sought that the court require the defendants to pay a sum of money into court or to make an interim payment to the claimant. The Commercial Court declined to order an interim payment or that a sum of money be paid into court. 

Contempt of court – Committal. N's son was put into foster care and orders were made by the court compelling N to take down the son's Facebook page and forbidding him from harassing social workers concerned with the case. N made posts on the Facebook page and sent messages to social workers. The Family Division held that N was clearly in contempt of court and granted the local authority's application for his committal to prison. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. In a trademark infringement case relating to Community trademarks the claimant sought to re-amend its particulars of claim so as to include other member states in addition to the United Kingdom. The defendants had previously agreed to other amendments and opposed the re-amendment. The Chancery Division allowed the amendment to cover both the territory of the United Kingdom and/or France. 

Adoption – Application. The judge made care and placement orders concerning two children. The parents sought leave to oppose the making of adoption orders and the transfer of the proceedings to the Slovak Republic. Other organisations applied for the placement of the children in foster care in the Slovak Republic. The Family Court, in dismissing the applications, held that none of the matters relied upon by the parents had amounted to a change in circumstances. With respect to the transfer of proceedings to and placement of the children in the Slovak Republic, it was too late in the proceedings and the judge had already determined those issues. 

Solemn procedure – Time bar. High Court of Justiciary: In an appeal by the Crown in a case in which the respondent was charged on indictment with a sexual offence, the court held that having determined that it was in the interests of justice that the trial diet required to be adjourned it was not open to the sheriff to determine that it was not in the interests of justice to extend the 12-month time bar to enable a new trial to take place. The court also made observations with a view to encouraging a different approach to first diets and one more in keeping with their essential purpose of determining any preliminary pleas or issues. 

Company – Liquidation. In 2010, the claimant, Goldtrail, a tour operator was placed into administration and thousands of its customers were stranded abroad. Goldtrail subsequently went into liquidation. It brought a claim against the first defendant, A, its sole director and shareholder for breach of fiduciary duties and breach of s 175 of the Companies Act 2006, and against other defendants for dishonest assistance. The Chancery Division, in allowing the claim, held that the first defendant was liable to Goldtrail for his misapplication of its money in breach of his fiduciary duties. The fact that the first defendant had been the sole director and 100% shareholder of Goldtrail did not prevent his conduct from being a breach by him of his fiduciary duty. The other defendants were jointly and severally liable to pay equitable compensation to Goldtrail for dishonestly assisting A. 

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. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union allowed the action brought by Laboratoires Polive for annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) relating to opposition proceedings between Arbora & Ausoni, SLU, and Laboratoires Polive concerning the application by Laboratoires Polive for registration of the word sign 'DODIE' as a Community trade mark. 

Contract – Construction. The claimant sought declarations as to the entitlement of the defendant to terminate a licence agreement. The Technology and Construction Court held that on a true construction of the licence agreement, BAE was entitled to terminate the licence agreement for convenience on notice under the provisions the enabling agreement which governed the licence agreement.t