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. 

Human rights – Right to liberty and security. The applicant Irish nationals were arrested on suspicion of involvement in murder in Northern Ireland, under s 41 of the Terrorism Act 2000, and their detention was repeatedly extended. They complained of breach of art 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The European Court of Human Rights held that there was no breach of art 5(3) of the Convention. The applicants had been brought promptly before a judicial officer who had had adequate jurisdiction to review the lawfulness of their detention and the power to order their release. Further, it had not been necessary that any consideration be given to their conditional release. 

Citizenship – United Kingdom citizenship. The claim raised the important issue of whether the defendant Secretary of State could refuse a child's application for British nationality where the child met all the requirements, but as a result of destitution, could not pay the required fee. The Administrative Court held that, in refusing the claimant's application, the Secretary of State had not acted outside her powers. Further, she had not breached her duty, under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, to respect family and private life or her duty, under art 14, read with art 8, of the Convention, by discriminating on the ground of impecuniosity. 

Sentence – Suspended sentence. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that a suspended sentence of two years' imprisonment, together with an unpaid work requirement had been unduly lenient, in circumstances where the victim had suffered multiple fractures to his jaw. The court quashed the suspended sentence order and imposed an immediate custodial sentence of two-and-half-years' imprisonment. 

Elections – Local government. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, dismissed the defendant's appeal against sentence for making a false statement as to his qualification to be elected as a candidate in the Enfield Borough Council elections, contrary to s 65A(1A)(b) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 and rejected his contention that insufficient weight had been given to his mental health when sentencing. 

Immigration – Leave to enter. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's refusal of entry clearance under the Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) regime. The Secretary of State agreed to reconsider the application on conditions including that the claimant would be re-interviewed. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), in dismissing the application, held that there was no demonstrable illegality in the Secretary of State's wish to re-interview the claimant. Further, the grant of the mandatory order was inappropriate, as that remedy was appropriate only in cases where it was clear that the Secretary of State was legally obliged to take a certain course of action, with no choice or discretion. 

European Union – Agricultural products and foodstuffs. The Court of Justice of the European Union dismissed the action brought by the Czech Republic for annulment of the decision by the European Commission to reject the application by that member state for registration of the name 'pomazánkové máslo' (spreadable butter) on the register of traditional specialities guaranteed on the basis of the provisions of Council Regulation (EC) No 509/2006 (on agricultural products and foodstuffs as traditional specialities guaranteed), as repealed and replaced by Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 (on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs). 

Land – Owner. The parties, who were five brothers, owned a number of properties and businesses. A dispute arose as to the ownership of the property and businesses. The Chancery Division held that the evidence overwhelmingly supported the claimant brothers' submission that the family had agreed to work together in business and build up assets in common, rather than the defendant brother's contention that each property and business was beneficially owned by the brother who was its registered owner. 

Solicitor – Law Society. The claimant Law Society carried out an investigation into the practice of the first defendant solicitor, E, and a company of which he was a director. It held that there should be an intervention regarding E and his practice. E applied for the intervention to be lifted. The Chancery Division dismissed the application, holding that the risks attached to withdrawing the evidence outweighed the risks of continuing it.