Latest Cases

Immigration – Deportation. The respondent Secretary of State made a deportation order against the appellant Jamaican national, who was a foreign criminal as defined by s 32(1) of the UK Borders Act 2007. The appellant contended that the decision to make a deportation order had been taken after the order had been signed, such that the relevant 'immigration decision' was unlawful. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the appeal. It held, inter alia, that the appellant's argument wrongly confused the decision notice with the actual decision to make the order, which had been taken when an official signed it. The relevant 'immigration decision' was contained in the order itself. Further, where reasons had to be given for a decision, they could be explained after the decision was taken and it was acceptable for that to be done by someone who had knowledge of the reasons, even if not himself the decision-maker. 

Cohabitation – Unmarried couple. The parties' relationship broke down and the defendant excluded the claimant from a residential property. He denied that she had any claim to any of the three properties in which they had spent time together. In each case, the defendant had bought the property in his sole name. He also denied that the claimant had a half share in a business. The claimant brought proceedings, claiming that there was an agreement or understanding that she should have a half share in the properties. Her claim was dismissed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the claimant's appeal on its facts. 

Redundancy – Employer's duty to consult appropriate trade union. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that the term 'establishment' in art 1(1)(a)(ii) of Council Directive (EC) 98/59 (on the approximation of the laws of the member states relating to collective redundancies) should be interpreted in the same way as the term in art (1)(a)(i) of that directive. Further, art 1(1)(a)(ii) of the Directive 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. 

Competition – Rules on competition. The Competition Appeal Tribunal dismissed the challenge by the Federation of Independent Practitioner Organisations under s 179 of the Enterprise Act 2002 to parts of a report into the provision of private healthcare produced by the Competition and Markets Authority . 

Immigration – Detention. The claimant sought judicial review of his immigration detention since March 2012. The defendant Secretary of State accepted that she had failed to review the claimant's continued detention between March and July 2013, but contended that the claimant would still have been lawfully detained. The Administrative Court held that, given the claimant's failure to co-operate in establishing his identity, his detention was presently lawful, in accordance with the principles in R v Governor of Durham Prison, ex p Singh ([1984] 1 All ER 983) and his release would not be ordered. Given the Secretary of State's concession, he was only entitled to nominal damages. 

Insolvency – Petition. The respondent company was a Greek state-owned airline that had gone into administration. The appellants were trustees of its pension scheme. The trustees presented a petition in England to wind-up the company on the ground that it was unable to meet its liability. The Chancery Division granted the petition, but it was overruled by the Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court dismissed the trustees' appeal. On the proper construction of 'economic activity' in the definition of 'establishment' in art 2(h) of Council Regulation (EC) 1346/2000 (on insolvency proceedings), the company could not, at the date of the petition, be said to have had an 'establishment' in the United Kingdom. 

Industrial relations – Collective bargaining. The claimant independent trade union was recognised by the defendant airline as entitled to conduct collective bargaining in respect of the pilots' 'pay, hours and holidays'. The claim concerned the proper construction and scope of the term 'pay, hours and holidays' in the specified method for collective bargaining. The Queen's Bench Division held that only those aspects of rostering that related to the core terms of employment (pay, hours and holidays) and were apt for incorporation as contractual terms fell within the scope of the claimant's recognition. Further, the defendant was required by the specific method to discuss pay with the claimant before varying the employees' contractual terms. The defendant had done so and had complied with its obligations in that regard. 

Employment – Fixed-term contracts. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal brought by the appellant trade union against a decision of the Court of Session, Inner House, that the employees in question who were on limited term contracts (LTCs) which had not been renewed had not been dismissed 'as redundant' for the purposes of the consultation requirement under s 188(1) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1992. The Court decided that, contrary to what had been decided by the Inner House, the coming to an end of an LTC was 'for a reason not related to the individual concerned' for the purposes of the definition of redundancy in s 195(1) of the Act. 

Patent – Infringement. The Patents Court considered a claim for infringement of European Patent (UK) No 2 292 219 directed to the use of rivastigmine for use in the treatment of Alzheimer's disease wherein the rivastigmine was administered by a transdermal therapeutic system. The court held that the patent was invalid on the ground of added matter and since the claimed invention lacked an inventive step over a previous patent. 

Employment – Unfair Dismissal. The employee was the Mayor of Liverpool. Prior to his appointment as Mayor, he was employed by the local authority at Chesterfield High School. He continued to receive salary and pension contributions from the authority, who treated him as an employee, although, for a substantial period, he was not required to provide any services. His employment was then transferred to the respondent, who was concerned that the employment was 'inequitable', as the publicly funded school was receiving no benefit. It terminated the agreement and the employee brought a claim before the employment tribunal (the tribunal) who held that although the dismissal had been for a potentially fair reason, the respondent's dismissal procedure had been deficient and the claim was upheld. However, the tribunal also held that the employee's compensation would be subject to a 100% Polkey deduction. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, dismissing the employee's appeal, held that the tribunal had not erred, and had been correct to deduct 100% of the employee's compensation under the Polkey guidelines.