Latest Cases

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. 

Education – School. The present judgment concerned two important issues which arose from the Administrative Court's previous decision (see [2015] All ER (D) 113 (Apr)). The court held that it was appropriate to remit the issue of the claimant school's 'regard' to the guidance for reconsideration and determination, in accordance with the previous judgment, by a newly appointed Schools Adjudicator. Further, the overall justice of the case had led to the conclusion that the school should recover 80% of its costs, with a payment on account of costs in the sum of £60,000. 

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. 

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. 

European Union – Value added tax. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling deciding, among other things, that art 193 of Council Directive (EC) 2006/112 (on the common system of value added tax) should be interpreted as meaning that the only person liable to pay the VAT was the taxable person supplying services, where those services had been supplied from a fixed establishment located in the member state in which the VAT was payable. 

Practice – Settlement of action. The plaintiffs had commenced an action which, on the day of the hearing, was settled by agreement. The parties informed the judge that there was a settlement, it was personally ratified by the parties and such was recorded by the court. The plaintiffs then, unsuccessfully, applied to the Supreme Court of Mauritius for a new trial. The Privy Council dismissed the plaintiffs' appeal as the Supreme Court had applied the correct test to the facts. 

Practice – Summary judgment. The claimant company owned patents related to telecommunications, many of which were essential to various standards (SEPs), including 2G, 3G and 4G standards. It brought proceedings against the defendants, including Huawei, Samsung and Google, alleging infringement of its patents. The defendants denied infringement of the claimant's patents and contended that the claimant had breached competition law by bringing proceedings and seeking injunctive relief. Huawei applied for summary judgment and/or strike out of the claim on the basis that licensing offers by the claimant were not compliant with its FRAND obligation, as alleged, and that that part of its claim could be struck out. The Patents Court, dismissing the application, held that none of the issues could be decided by summary judgment as to the facts. The claimant had a real prospect of success in defending all the various points arising on the summary judgment application. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. In the course of care proceedings in relation to two children, B and M, the judge made an order stating, so far as relevant, that the court made an adoption order in respect of B to the applicants to be made seven days from that date and that the court had approved an adoption order in respect of M, such order to be made upon notification to the court that M had undertaken a procedure for circumcision. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that it had been the misapplication of the relevant legal and procedural framework that was, in large measure, the reason why it had no option but to allow the appeal. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against the judge's decision, finding that the various procedural requirements were established for her extradition to the United States to face trial for manufacture, importation and distribution of steroids and human growth hormones, and money laundering offences. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that extradition would not constitute a disproportionate interference with the appellant's family life, together with that of her daughter, contrary to art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Further, it would not be oppressive, given her mental condition and risk of suicide. 

False imprisonment – Elements of tort. The defendant taxi driver gave the claimant a lift to his home. Believing that the claimant was going to make off without paying, the defendant drove away with the claimant still in the back of the taxi. The claimant leaped out of the taxi and suffered severe injuries. The Queen's Bench Division held that, given the claimant's own negligence, there would be judgment for the claimant for 50% of his damages for the consequences of his injuries.