Latest Cases

Employment – Unfair dismissal. The employee consultant neonatologist was dismissed for bullying colleagues. She brought a claim for unfair dismissal and disability discrimination, alleging that the employer had failed to make reasonable adjustments in respect of her dyslexia. The employment tribunal (the tribunal) held that the dismissal had been unfair, but dismissed the reasonable adjustments claim on the facts. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, dismissing the appeal and cross-appeal from the finding on unfair dismissal, held, among other things, that the tribunal had not erred in holding the dismissal to be unfair or in its decision that there should be no Polkey reduction. 

European Union – Freedom of establishment. The Court of Justice of the European Union granted the application by the European Commission for a declaration that by adopting and maintaining in force the tax scheme provided for in para 6b of the German Law on Income Tax, Germany had failed to fulfil its obligations under art 49 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and art 31 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area. 

Copyright – Infringement. The principal issue raised by the appeal was whether a technical drawing containing details of a septic tank was capable of protection under the Copyright Act (Ch 323). The Court of Appeal of the Commonwealth of the Bahamas held that it was not and reversed the decision of the trial judge who had held that it was. The Privy Council held that the decision of the Court of Appeal on that issue had been wrong. The judge had been right in having held that, although the appellants could not prevent copying the septic tank itself, they had been entitled to prevent copying of the technical drawing. 

European Union – Consumer protection. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling, deciding, amongst other things, that Directive (EC) 2005/29 of the European Parliament and of the Council (concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market) had to be interpreted as meaning that the communication, by a professional to a consumer, of erroneous information, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, should be classified as a 'misleading commercial practice', within the meaning of that directive, even though that information concerned only one single consumer. 

Immigration – Workers. The claimant residential care home for the elderly sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision, removing it from the Tier 2 register of licensed sponsors on the basis that K had not had the role of public relations officer stated in his certificate of sponsorship. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the Secretary of State had been entitled to rely upon interview records with the claimant's staff. Accordingly, the Secretary of State had been entitled to conclude that K's role had been substantially that of a senior care worker and not a public relations officer. 

Contract – Breach of contract. The claimant transferred 1,000 shares in a company incorporated in Jersey to the first defendant as part of a joint venture. He brought a claim contending that the first defendant had failed to pay him the agreed share price and, against the two defendants, for unlawful means conspiracy. The Chancery Division held that on the evidence, the claim against the first defendant for payment of the price of the shares succeeded. The claim for unlawful means conspiracy failed where the claimant had failed to establish that he had suffered any loss by reason of the matters complained of. 

Practice – Civil litigation. The claimant local authority tenant was successful in her action against the authority. The claimant succeeded in her claim for breach of statutory duty, but failed in her claims for negligence and misrepresentation based upon substantially the same facts. The judge made a costs order which effectively wiped out the damages that she had recovered in the litigation. The claimant appealed. The Court of Appeal amended the costs order to more effectively reflect the various issues. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. There was a final consent order made in proceedings between the husband and wife. The wife applied to vary the order. The husband contended that the wife had to appeal for which she needed permission. The Family Division held that the wife was entitled to proceed as she had and that she did not need the permission of the court, guidance was also given on Family Procedure Rules 2955/10, 30.3(1)(a). 

European Union – Jurisdiction. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling, deciding, amongst other things, that art 13 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 (on insolvency proceedings) should be interpreted as applying to a situation in which a payment, challenged by an insolvency administrator, of a sum of money attached before the opening of the insolvency proceedings had been made only after the opening of those proceedings 

Human rights – Right to fair trial. The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings between his arrest for attempted importation of cocaine and the refusal of leave to appeal against a confiscation order had been incompatible with art 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The European Court of Human Rights held that the delays attributable to the state authorities totalled three years in that 11-year period, in violation of art 6(1) of the Convention. However, financial compensation was refused, as finding a violation had constituted adequate just satisfaction and the court had no power to dismiss the confiscation order.