Latest Cases

Immigration – Refugee. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimant Syrian national's procedural judicial review challenge to the defendant Secretary of State's decision to refuse to provide him a travel document for reasons of national security. Although the pending closed material procedure had inherent limitations, it had been considered consistent with the requirements of fairness, art 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and/or art 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union for other purposes, and the claimant was not entitled to more. 

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 – Unfair dismissal. The employee had been dismissed following an investigation into possible misconduct. He appealed against the employment tribunal's dismissal of his claim for unfair dismissal. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in allowing the appeal, ruled that, the tribunal had erred in failing to give consideration to what had led to the investigating officer having a change of heart in circumstances where the Human Resources appeared to have persuaded him to take more critical view of the employee's conduct and to reject his explanation. Whilst an investigating officer was entitled to seek guidance from Human Resources or others, such advice should be limited to matters of law and procedure and to ensuring that all necessary matters have been addressed and achieve clarity. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Queen's Bench Division granted the third defendant joint tortfeasor's application for summary judgment on the basis that a consent order made with the two of the joint feasors meant that the claimant had no reasonable prospect of success against the third defendant as the claim had been satisfied by the consent order. 

Employment – Unfair dismissal. The Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed an employee's appeal against the employment tribunal's ruling that he had not been unfairly dismissed notwithstanding procedural shortcomings in the termination of his employment on the ground of misconduct. The tribunal had taken into account the procedural failings, had not adopted the wrong approach and there was no error of law that vitiated that decision. 

Insolvency – Administration. The Companies Court held that directions for the administration of the statutory trusts could be given on an application under para 63 to Sch B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986 Act and, on the application of the administrators, it gave directions regarding the distribution of money in the client accounts of insurance intermediary companies, AXA and Aviva, which had gone into administration. 

European Commission – Rules on competition. The General Court of the European Union allowed the application by Singapore Airlines Ltd and Singapore Airlines Cargo Pte Ltd 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. 

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. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Family Division dismissed the father's application for an order for the summary return of his son to Belgium, pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction on the basis that it was not practicable or possible for either the mother or the court or, indeed, anyone else to give lawful effect to an order if one was made for the return of that child to Belgium. 

Costs – Order for costs. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the defendant's appeal concerning whether the judge had been wrong to have held that the claimant should not suffer the normal consequences of not having accepted a CPR Pt 36 offer. The judge had concluded that the normal consequences would be unjust and that conclusion had been based on relevant considerations.