Latest Cases

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. 

Employment tribunal – Procedure. The employment tribunal judge had rejected the employee's claims for unfair dismissal and compensation under the tribunal's jurisdiction pursuant to r 12 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, SI 2013/1237. The Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed the employee's appeal against that decision, deciding that the tribunal had taken into account wholly mistaken factors. Accordingly, the matter was remitted to the tribunal to reconsider the question of rejection of the claim form by a different tribunal judge. 

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. 

Employment – Dismissal. The employment tribunal dismissed the employee's claims for wrongful dismissal, automatic unfair dismissal and whistle blowing claims. On appeal by the employee against those findings, the Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld the tribunal's decision, taking the view, among other things, that the employee had been unable to demonstrate that the tribunal had fallen into error in finding that the matters relied on by the employee did not constitute protected disclosures. 

Dentist – Disciplinary proceedings. The Professional Conduct Committee (the PCC) of the defendant General Dental Council found the appellant dentist guilty of dishonesty and other allegations, and suspended her for a year. The appellant appealed against the finding of dishonesty and the sanction. The Administrative Court, in allowing the appeal, held that, in the light of the PCC's findings, it had simply been impossible for it to have correctly concluded that it had been more likely than not that the appellant had realised that what she had been doing had been, by the standards of ordinary and honest dentists, dishonest. 

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. 

Contract – Terms. The defendant company entered into a sale and purchase agreement (SPA) to sell or procure the sale of businesses and related assets, including a property, to three companies, including the claimant company. Under the SPA, the property was to be transferred to the claimant, but in the event, the claimant acquired a ten year lease in respect of it. The SPA contained environmental provisions, by which defendant agreed to indemnify the claimant and others in relation to environmental matters. The claimant sought a declaration as to whether, on the true construction of the SPA, it had a claim against the defendant, under the indemnity clause in the SPA, simply by virtue of the presence of hazardous substances at the property. The Chancery Division dismissed the claim, ruling that the claimant did not have a claim unless it could establish that it was liable to some third party for all sums payable to, or by reason of the directions or order of, any authority or agency responsible for compliance with environmental laws. 

Pension – Pension scheme. The claimant employee brought proceedings challenging a pension scheme implemented by the defendant employer, the BBC. The court dismissed the claim but referred an issue to the Pensions Ombudsman (the PO). The employee challenged the PO's findings as to the issue of whether the BBC had acted in breach of implied duties arising from his contract of employment. The Chancery Division, in dismissing the employee's appeal, held that the PO had not erred. 

Income Tax – Relief. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (the tribunal) dismissed the appeals by partners in two partnerships against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) which had refused the partners loss relief in relation to their expenditure on certain films on the basis that they had not been carrying on a trade in the relevant periods. The tribunal further rejected the partners' applications for judicial review. 

European Union – Employment. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling deciding, among other things that, art 1(1)(a) of Council Directive (EC) 98/59 should be interpreted as precluding national legislation that introduced the undertaking and not the establishment as the sole reference unit, where the effect of the application of that criterion was to preclude the information and consultation procedure provided for in arts 2 to 4 of that directive, when the dismissals in question would have been considered 'collective redundancies', under the definition in art 1(1)(a) of that directive, had the establishment been used as the reference unit.