Latest Cases

European Union – Value Added Tax. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed an appeal by the local authorities against a determination that, if they were treated as a non-taxable person for VAT purposes, within the meaning of art 4(5) of Council Directive (EEC) 77/388, then that would distort competition in the off-street car-parking market in the area of pricing. 

Employment – Unfair dismissal. The Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed the employer's appeal against the employment tribunal's decision upholding the employee's claims of unfair and wrongful dismissal where the suggestion that the employer had acted in bad faith in dismissing him had not been put to the employer's witnesses. That procedural error rendered the decision unsafe. The case was remitted to a different tribunal for a rehearing. 

European Commission – Rules on competition. The General Court of the European Union allowed the application by Japan Airlines Co. Ltd for annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final (the contested decision) in which the European Commission had found that that company and other carriers had participated in a single and continuous infringement of EU competition law by co-ordinating its behaviour as regards the pricing of freight services. The General Court decided that the contested decision was vitiated by a defective statement of reasons which justified its annulment. 

Employment – Unfair dismissal. The employee appealed against the employment tribunal's dismissal of her case that she had been subjected to detriment and dismissed because of protected disclosures. The employer, Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, appealed against the tribunal's finding of unfair dismissal and a reduction of 20% for contributory fault. The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that, in respect of protected disclosures, the tribunal had not precisely applied the statutory test in s 43A of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal had failed to apply the test in s 98 of the Act on the question of unfair dismissal. The appeal was also allowed on points related to contributory conduct and an item of expenses. 

Employment – Transfer of employment. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in dismissing an employee's appeal, held that the tribunal had not erred in ruling that because an employee, who had been on long term sick leave, had not contributed to the economic activity of a company's grouping he not assigned to that grouping and his employment had not transferred to a new employer within meaning of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006, SI 2006/246. 

Criminal law – Appeal. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that the conduct of the defence counsel had not reached a level of incompetence to have called into question the safety of the defendant's conviction or the fairness of the trial. 

European Commission – Rules on competition. The General Court of the European Union allowed the application by British Airways plc (BA) for annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final (the contested decision) in which the European Commission had found that BA and other carriers had participated in a single and continuous infringement of EU competition law by co-ordinating its behaviour as regards the pricing of freight services. The General Court decided that the contested decision was vitiated by a defective statement of reasons which justified its annulment. 

Patent – Medicine. The Chancery Division made declarations as sought by the claimant pharmaceutical companies. It held that the initial marketing authorisation for a drug, Ribomustin, had been obtained in 2005, as contended by the claimants, rather than 2010, as contended by the defendant pharmaceutical companies. As a result, the ten-year period of delay before the claimants could market their own product had commenced in 2005, not 2010. 

Human rights – Freedom of expression. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the claimant's judicial review proceedings, held that the decision of the Greater London Authority (GLA) to erect and maintain fencing on and around Parliament Square Garden had interfered with his rights under arts 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights. However, the interference had been justified and the very definition of a proportionate response. 

European Commission – Rules on competition. The General Court of the European Union allowed the application by SAS Cargo Group A/S and others for annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final (the contested decision) in which the European Commission had found that those companies and other carriers had participated in a single and continuous infringement of EU competition law by co-ordinating its behaviour as regards the pricing of freight services. The General Court decided that the contested decision was vitiated by a defective statement of reasons which justified its annulment.