Latest Cases

Injunction – Discretion. The Commercial Court dismissed the claimant's application for an anti-arbitration injunction against the defendant, which had brought arbitration proceedings in Italy, where the parties had agreed, in a terms of business agreement, an exclusive jurisdiction provision for arbitration with the foreign seat. 

Employment – Dismissal. The employee was dismissed following unsuccessful claims for race discrimination and underpayment of his salary, as his claims were found to be 'vexatious, malicious and/or frivolous'. He brought a claim for unfair dismissal before an employment tribunal (the tribunal) which dismissed his claim on the basis that the dismissal was not unfair for the purposes of s 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, dismissing the employee's appeal, held: (i) the tribunal had adequately considered whether the employer had believed the employee's claim was made in bad faith, and (ii) the tribunal had not addressed the issue of a comparator to the employee's position, as the point had not been raised before it. 

Practice – Civil Procedure Rules. The Chancery Division held that, where an application was made for interim relief under s 25 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982, it was necessary for a claim to be commenced for the relief to be granted. In the circumstances, it would be necessary for the applicants to commence a claim for the relief to be granted. 

Insurance – Reinsurance. The Commercial Court held that, among other things, the claimant company was not entitled to avoid two reinsurance treaties and could not recover the sum of around US$5.15m paid to the defendant under the treaties because, had a fair presentation of the defendant's position been given, it was not more likely than not that the claimant's representative would have refused to agree the treaties. 

Limitation of actions – Triennium. Court of Session: In an action, raised in December 2004, in which the pursuer sought damages for physical and mental abuse he allegedly suffered between 1965 and 1971 whilst at a children's home run by the defenders, the court concluded that it was not prepared to exercise the discretion in terms of s 19A of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 Act to allow the action to proceed notwithstanding the expiry of the triennium in April 1979, as it was not equitable to allow it to proceed given the material prejudice the defenders had suffered as a result of the delay in bringing the action. 

Housing – Homeless person. The appellant had rejected an offer of permanent accommodation made by the respondent local authority, at which points its housing duty to her was discharged. The reviewing officer confirmed the decision and the appeal to the county court was dismissed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the reviewing officer had been entitled to find that there was no medical evidence that a property of its type would have the consequence that the appellant's mental health would be so affected by it as to make it reasonable for her to refuse to accept it in all the circumstances of the case. Further, the officer had conscientiously recognised the public sector equality duty and had been at pains to acquire all information relevant for that purpose. 

Town and country planning – Enforcement notice. The appellant appealed against the decision of the inspector appointed by the first respondent Secretary of State, dismissing its appeal against the second respondent local authority's issue of an enforcement notice. The Planning Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that art 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights had not required that the enforcement notice should have been amended so as to protect against the possibility that the structures could in future be used for residential purposes. Further, the inspector had not failed to have regard to relevant matters. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The local authority applied for care orders in respect of two children. The authority pursued findings that bruising sustained by one of the children had been inflicted upon him either by the mother or her partner. The Family Court, in dismissing the applications, held that the broad canvas of the evidence demonstrated that, on the balance of probabilities, the bruising sustained by the child had been accidental. In light of that conclusion, and in circumstances where those allegations represented the only issue that the local authority had with the care of the children by their mother and her partner, the threshold criteria, under s 31(2) of the Children Act 1989, were not satisfied. 

Discrimination – Nationality, on the grounds of. The claimant Afghan nationals who had served as interpreters with the British armed forces in Afghanistan claimed that the Afghan scheme offering financial benefits and relocation opportunities was less generous than the Iraq scheme. The Divisional Court held that the claimants' discrimination claims under ss 29(6) and 39(2) of the Equality Act 2010 failed because the territorial reach of those provisions did not include their circumstances, and the common law discrimination claim had no substance. However, the defendant Secretaries of State had failed to have regard to the matters set out in s 149(1)(b) and (c) of the Act when having formulated the Afghan scheme. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against orders for his extradition to Poland to serve two sentences of 18 months' imprisonment for fraud committed in 2001 and 2002. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the appellant's extradition would not breach arts 6 or 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.