Latest Cases

Practice – Summary judgment. The claimant company provided professional engineering services to the defendant, in respect of the development of a site. The claimant brought a claim for unpaid fees in respect of those services. The defendant counterclaimed, alleging professional negligence. The claimant applied for summary judgment on its claim and to strike out the counterclaim on the basis that it was unparticularised and had no real prospect of success. If further contended that the counterclaim should be struck out where the defendant had failed to comply with an unless order at a pre-trial review to provide a pre-trial review questionnaire. The Technology and Construction Court granted summary judgment on the claimant's claim and struck out the counterclaim. The pre-trial review questionnaire filed by the defendant had not, in substance, complied with the unless order and amounted to substantive non-compliance. 

Practice – Amendment. The claimant was the owner of a development in Birmingham. It brought claims against the defendant contractor in respect of alleged defects in the development. The claimant applied to amend its particulars of claim. The Technology and Construction Court, in dismissing the application, considered the correct approach to amendments to particulars of claim. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The proceedings concerned linked appeals regarding the lawfulness of a Home Office guidance document, 'Requests for removal decisions'. The context was that overstayers or illegal entrants whose applications for leave to remain had been refused without a right of appeal could request the respondent Secretary of State to make a removal decision to generate a right of appeal. The guidance informed immigration officers how to respond to such requests. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the guidance was not required to be laid before Parliament under s 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971, because it did not set out criteria which were or might be determinative of an application for leave to enter or remain. Further, the guidance was perfectly clear. 

Warrant – Search warrant. The first defendant granted the second defendant Metropolitan Police Commissioner four warrants, under s 8 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, concerning the claimants' office and homes. The claimants sought judicial review. The Divisional Court held that it had not been feasible to provide greater specificity and it had been unrealistic to expect the officers to have taken away any relevant material for a computer or other storage device in paper form or on memory sticks. Further, it was permissible to order the seizure of electronic storage devices or their contents in the circumstances without resort to other statutory provisions. 

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal brought by the appellant trade union against a decision of the Court of Session, Inner House, that the employees in question who were on limited term contracts (LTCs) which had not been renewed had not been dismissed 'as redundant' for the purposes of the consultation requirement under s 188(1) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1992. The Court decided that, contrary to what had been decided by the Inner House, the coming to an end of an LTC was 'for a reason not related to the individual concerned' for the purposes of the definition of redundancy in s 195(1) of the Act. 

Unfair dismissal – Reasons justifying dismissal. The employment tribunal (the tribunal) dismissed the employee bus driver's claim for unfair dismissal on the ground that she had repeatedly refused to attend the employer's in-house training centre and that the penalty of dismissal lay within the band of reasonable responses a reasonable employer could have adopted. The Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed the employee's appeal on the basis that the tribunal had erred in failing to make proper findings as to: (i) the reason(s) for the dismissal of the appeal; and (ii) the reason(s) for and reasonableness of the employee's dismissal by reference to that or those reasons. Consequently, the case would be remitted to the tribunal for those matters to be considered. 

Negligence – Damages. Liability was admitted by the defendant hospital in respect of negligent failure by the paediatricians to recognise and to treat an infection which led to the development of meningitis. Various matters remained in issue for the court to decide. The Queen's Bench Division decided on: (i) the amount recoverable for future care; (ii) the amount recoverable for case management; (iii) the sum recoverable to cover the additional cost of holidays caused by HS's disability; and (iv) whether the cost of a hydrotherapy pool at HS's home was recoverable. 

Employment – Disability. The employment tribunal dismissed the employee's complaints of, among other things, unfair dismissal. However, it decided that the employer had breached its duty to make reasonable adjustments in respect of the employee's disability. The employee appealed on the ground that, having made that finding, the employer ought to have considered whether the employer had discriminated against her under s 39(2)(c) and 7(b) of the Equality Act 2010. The employer appealed on the basis that the tribunal had failed to make proper findings as to whether the adjustments sought by the employee had in fact been reasonable. The Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed both appeals and remitted the matter to the same tribunal for consideration. 

Employment – Remuneration. The appellant teachers took part in a one day strike and, as a result, the respondent college deducted 1/260 of their annual salary to reflect the value of the service which the teachers had failed to provide on that day. That fraction was based on five working days per week. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the appellants' contention that the appropriate deduction was 1/365. The court held, among other things, that pay did not accrue at an equal rate day by day and that relating the work to the total number of annual working days provided an acceptable principle which possibly erred in the employees' favour. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Swatch AG against 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 Swatch AG and Panavision Europe Ltd (PEL) concerning the application by PEL for registration of the word mark 'SWATCHBALL' as a Community trade mark.