Latest Cases

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. 

Road traffic – Parking place. The claimant challenged the defendant local authority's decisions to increase or change parking charges on the ground that the intended purpose was to help the authority raise additional revenue. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that there was no evidence that raising additional revenue had been the authority's purpose. There was evidence that the authority's purpose had been to address the problems that had come with private vehicle traffic. 

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. 

Immigration – Leave to enter. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, considered whether decisions of the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (the FTT) to grant leave to enter to persons who were family members of someone already present in the United Kingdom had been so affected by the overruled reasoning at first instance in MM ([2014] All ER (D) 133 (Jul)) that the appeals should be allowed. The court, in allowing the appeals, held that in each case the FTT had erred in law in its decision in a number of respects. The court gave guidance, among other things, as to the test to be applied to cases falling outside the scope of the new Immigration Rules. 

Compulsory purchase – Compulsory purchase order. The claimants challenged the defendant Secretary of State's decision to confirm a compulsory purchase order (CPO). The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that the CPO had been confirmed by the Secretary of State on a basis other than that the interested parties had put forward at the inquiry. Further, the decision had to be quashed for the want of evidence to support crucial conclusions as to the reasonable prospect of an acceptable planning permission being granted and implemented, and given the failure to give the claimants a chance to deal with the changed basis of the CPO. 

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. 

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.