Latest Cases

Employment – Continuity. The employment tribunal (the tribunal) had found that the first respondent employee's employment had not transferred from the appellant company to the second respondent. The issue was whether the tribunal had erred in interpreting the word 'client' in reg 3(1)(b) of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006, SI 2006/246 (TUPE) as requiring one single legal entity. The tribunal had found that the existence of a number of legal entitles as clients meant that there could be no service provision change (SPC) transfer. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, allowing the appellant's appeal, held that the tribunal had erred in adopting such a strict view. The existence of more than one legal entity, and possibly even more than one contract, would not necessarily be fatal for the purposes of reg 3(1)(b) of TUPE. The case was remitted for reconsideration. 

Redundancy – Employer's duty to consult appropriate trade union. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling, deciding that art 1(1)(a)(ii) of Council Directive (EC) 98/59 should be interpreted as not precluding national legislation that laid down an obligation to inform and consult workers in the event of the dismissal, within a period of 90 days, of at least 20 workers from a particular establishment of an undertaking, and not where the aggregate number of dismissals across all of the establishments or across some of the establishments of an undertaking over the same period reached or exceeded the threshold of 20 workers. 

Costs – Security for costs. The claimant issued a claim in 2012, seeking a declaration that he was the beneficial owner of shares in an English company, which owned valuable land in Belarus. The third defendant (D3) applied to be joined to the proceedings in 2014 and counterclaimed for a declaration that he was the beneficial owner of the shares and that they were held on trust for him by the second defendant. D3 applied for security of costs. The master dismissed the application, among other things, on the grounds that D3 should have applied to join the proceedings as sooner and that there had been a delay in making the application. The Chancery Division upheld the master's decision on the grounds of delay, notwithstanding that it disagreed with other aspects of the master's decision, including in respect of her decision that the 'Crabtree principle' applied to the case. 

Human rights – Right to respect for private and family life. The Supreme Court considered the question of whether the policy of the respondent Police Service of Northern Ireland to retain indefinitely the DNA profile, fingerprints and photographs of a person convicted of a recordable offence was in breach of art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The court held, in dismissing the appellant's appeal, that the policy was not in breach of art 8 of the Convention, as it was within the margin of appreciation and proportionate. 

Contract – Terms of contract. The Chancery Division ruled on whether a special purpose vehicle company (ARIC) had validly calculated its loss following the automatic early termination of a put option,which had been granted to it by the first defendant, Lehman Brothers Finance SA (LBF). The early termination had been triggered following the collapse of the Lehman's Brother's group. The court held that ARIC had validly calculated its loss in accordance with the relevant provisions of an International Swaps and Derivatives Association master agreement (1992 edition) and that, accordingly, the claimant was entitled to the payment from LBF of US$61,507,902, together with interest. 

Immigration – Leave to enter. The claimant Pakistani national sought judicial review of the defendant entry clearance officer's refusal of entry clearance as a Tier 4 (General) student based on his interview answers. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), in allowing the application, held that the decision-making process culminating in the refusal of the claimant's application had been manifestly unfair and the decision had been tainted by irrationality. It followed that the Case Worker Guidance relating to Tier 4 interviews and the genuine student rule had been breached to that extent. 

Contract – Construction of contract. The claimant investment bank was appointed, under contracts, as the financial adviser of the defendant, which owned, through its subsidiaries, the rights to develop and exploit mineral assets in Sierra Leone. The claimant brought a claim for the payment of fees allegedly due under the contracts. The judge held that, on the facts and the true construction of the contracts, the claimant was entitled to the payment of some of the fees sought. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the defendant's appeal as the judge had not given the relevant contractual term the correct interpretation. 

European Union – Copyright. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling, deciding that art 4(1) of Directive (EC) 2001/29 (on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society) had to be interpreted as meaning that it allowed a holder of an exclusive right to distribute a protected work to prevent an offer for sale or a targeted advertisement of the original or a copy of that work, even if it was not established that that advertisement had given rise to the purchase of the protected work by an EU buyer, in so far as that that advertisement invited consumers of the member state in which that work was protected by copyright to purchase it. 

Bankruptcy – Petition. The Chancery Division made a bankruptcy order in respect of the respondent, having considered issues of jurisdiction, service and security. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimants sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision to refuse them leave to remain as Tier 1 Entrepreneurs, relying on a legitimate expectation said to arise from a conversation over the Secretary of State's helpline. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), in dismissing the application, held that there was no doubt that the claimants had not had a legitimate expectation that their application would be granted. They had been given conflicting information, the conversation relied on had been incorrect and the telephone operator had had no authority to assure the outcome.