Latest Cases

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. 

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. 

Contract – Construction. The proceedings concerned an agreement relating to the proposed redevelopment of the site of the embassy of the United States of America in Grosvenor Square. In determining the claimant, Chelsfield's, applications for summary judgment, the Chancery Division considered, among other things, whether the first defendant, QDDC, had a real prospect of success in establishing that the continuation of the agreement between the parties had to be dependant on the continued existence of a relationship of trust and confidence between them. The court allowed Chelsfield's application for summary judgment in respect of its claim for a declaration that the agreement remained in existence and had not been determined. It dismissed Chelsfield's application for summary judgment in respect of its claim for an order, among other things, requiring QDDC to instruct an expert to complete his determination of the terms of a subsidiary agreement. 

Financial services – Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). The appellant Financial Conduct Authority (the FCA) appealed against the decision of the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (the UT), holding that the respondent had been identified in notices given by the FCA to a firm. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, set out the correct approach to the issue of identification for the purposes of s 393 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. It then held that the UT had been wrong in its articulation of the relevant tests, but had reached the correct conclusion that the 'matters' in the notices had identified the respondent. 

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. 

Trinidad and Tobago – Fatal accident. PB was killed in a motor vehicle accident. The appellant administratrix of her estate obtained judgment against the driver. The appellant raised an action against the respondent insurer, which pleaded that it had already paid out the maximum $1m to third parties with claims arising out of the accident and had discharged its contractual liabilities. The appellant was granted summary judgment, but the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago allowed the respondent's appeal. The Privy Council, in dismissing the appellant's appeal, held that s 10 of the Motor Vehicles Insurance (Third-Party Risks) Act (Ch 48:51) contained no provision authorising the insurer to delay paying a claim established against its insured in order to enable other claimants to catch up so as to allow the rateable payment of multiple claimants on a limited insurance fund. 

Intellectual property – Design rights. The claimant and the first defendant were competing wholesalers of furniture, which they sold to retailers such as the second defendant. The claimant sought damages for loss allegedly arising from the defendants' sale of tables, allegedly infringing the claimant's design rights in respect of its own tables. By a Tomlin order, the defendants agreed that there should be an inquiry as to damages on the basis that they had infringed the claimant's unregistered European Union and United Kingdom design rights. The Intellectual Property and Enterprise Court ruled that, in relation to 20% of the sales of both tables by the first defendant, the claimant was entitled to the profit it would have made from sales of equal numbers of its own tables of equivalent design, plus the profit it would have made from sales of convoyed goods. In relation to the remaining 80% of sales of infringing tables by the first defendant, the claimant was entitled to damages of £100 per table. 

Natural justice – Duty to act fairly. The claimants sought judicial review of the defendant local authority's decision that full-time nursery education for children from the age of three free of charge would cease to be available. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the consultation exercise carried out by the authority had been fair in all of the circumstances and it had dealt adequately with the issue of realistic alternatives. Further, the issue of childcare had been approached on the basis of a correct appreciation of the authority's statutory duty. 

Land – Estates or interests capable of subsisting at law. The second defendant trustees owned a site of land over which the claimants had obtained a unilateral notice following the issuing of a claim. The notice inhibited the ability of the trustees to deal with their property. The trustees applied to cancel the notice. The Queen's Bench Division cancelled the notice as the basis of the notice was a money claim, namely for the introduction fee. Such a claim was not a proprietary claim and the notice had to be vacated pursuant to para 2 of Sch 4 of the Land Registration Act 2002. 

Negligence – Causation. The claimant brought a claim for damages for personal injuries and consequential loss arising from the performance of a medical diagnostic procedure, an angiogram, by a hospital for which the defendant had responsibility for the medical and surgical services at the hospital. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed the claimants case on the basis that she had been adequately informed and had not withdrawn her consent.