Latest Cases

Employment – Contract of service. The claimant had been a rector at the defendant's diocese. He had issued claims in the employment tribunal which raised the preliminary questions of whether he was either an employee for the purpose of s 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 or a worker for the purpose of s 43K(1). The tribunal found that he was neither, but the Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed his appeal. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the Bishop's appeal and found that the tribunal had determined the issue of whether there had been an employment contract, it had correctly found that there had not been and nor had the claimant satisfied the definition of worker. 

Costs – Order for costs. Following settlement of a personal injury claim, an issue arose as to whether the conditional fee agreement that had been entered into between the claimant and her solicitors had been enforceable as between them, which in turn affected the recoverability of the claimant's costs from the defendant. The district judge had found that there had been no agreement in place because there had been no intention to create legal relations. That was overturned by a second judge. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the claimant's appeal. There had, on the facts, been a legally binding agreement that had been entered into at the claimant's home and the requirements of reg 5 of the Cancellation of Contracts Made in a Consumer's Home or Place of Work etc Regulations 2008, SI 2013/3134, had been met. The CFA had not been enforceable against the claimant and the defendant was not liable for the costs charged under it. 

Extradition – Extradition order. Given that, in the majority of cases in extradition proceedings under Pt 1 of the Extradition Act 2003, defendants sought to rely on art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights to resist extradition to other states within the European Union, the Divisional Court gave guidance on the approach that should be taken at the extradition hearing by a district judge and the proper approach on an appeal. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union allowed the action brought by Spa Monopole, compagnie fermiere de Spa SA/NV (Spa) against a decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) relating to opposition proceedings between Spa and Orly International Inc concerning the application by the latter company for registration of the word sign 'SPARITUAL' as a Community trade mark. 

Competition – Competition Appeal Tribunal. The Competition Appeal Tribunal ruled on the application by DSG Retail Ltd and its parent company for permission to serve out of the jurisdiction proceedings brought under s 47A of the Competition Act 1998. The tribunal decided that permission would be refused for service of the claim as presently pleaded alleging infringing acts by the defendants after a certain date, but was otherwise granted on the basis that the pleadings were amended in accordance with the present ruling. 

Family proceedings – Orders. In earlier care proceedings, findings of fact were made in respect of the circumstances surrounding the death of a child (P) in 2012. Family proceedings ended with the making of care orders concerning the other children of the family. Subsequently, new medical evidence emerged, a new inquest was ordered in respect of P, a serious case review was in progress and it was announced that criminal proceedings were not to be taken against either of P's parents. The father applied for the discharge of the care orders and for a contact order. The application, which amounted to an application for a rehearing, was supported by the children's guardian, but opposed by the local authority and the mother. The Family Division held that, on the facts, justice required that a further hearing should take place. 

Divorce – Costs. The wife appealed against an order of the Court of Appeal of Jamaica dismissing her appeal in respect of her applications under the Married Women's Property Act 1887 (Jamaica) (the 1987 Act) and the Matrimonial Causes Act 1989 (Jamaica) (the 1989 Act). The Board held that the appeal under the 1887 Act would be dismissed but the appeal under the 1989 Act would be allowed and her application reheard. 

Solicitor – Disciplinary proceedings. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (the SDT) found allegations against the appellant proved, and ordered the appellant to be suspended for two years and to pay £4,000 in costs. The appellant appealed against the sanction. The Administrative Court, in allowing the appeal, held that a suspension for two years would only be appropriate where the facts had been close to warranting an order striking the solicitor off. In the present case, the period of suspension had been much too long and the appropriate period of suspension was one year. However, a one-year condition would be attached to the appellant's practising certificate. 

Statement of claim – Amendment. The claimant entered into a loan agreement with the defendant banks (together the bank). Under the conditions of the loan, the claimant entered into an amortising base rate swap with the bank (the swap). The claimant brought proceedings, contending, among other things, that it had been mis-sold the swap. Only weeks before the trial, the claimant applied for permission to amend its particulars of claim. The Chancery Division ruled that the present case was one where the balance came down firmly in favour of refusing permission for the disputed amendments where the application had been made too late, the amendments were formulated with insufficient clarity and particularity, and where the bank would face real and substantial prejudice if the application were allowed. 

Company – Winding up. The Revenue and Customs Commissioners (the Revenue) presented a creditor's petition to wind up the applicant company based on assessment for alleged unpaid corporation tax and alleged VAT fraud. The company appealed against the Revenue's tax assessments and applied to dismiss petition on the basis that the debt was disputed in good faith on substantial grounds. The Companies Court held that, on the evidence, the applicant's appeal had no real prospect of success and the application for the petition to be dismissed was, therefore, dismissed.