Latest Cases

Unfair dismissal – Belief discrimination. The employment tribunal (the tribunal) had found that the employee had been fairly dismissed for gross misconduct. However, it had also ruled that he had suffered unlawful direct discrimination and harassment on account of his protected left-wing democratic socialist beliefs. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in dismissing the employee's appeal, held that, whilst there appeared to be tension between the conclusion that the employee's dismissal was fair and unlawfully discriminatory, provided the tribunal had made findings of fact, correctly applied the relevant statutory test, and reached reasoned conclusions by reference to the facts found that were supported by the evidence, there was no reason in principle why its conclusion could not stand. The findings of unlawful direct discrimination and harassment could not stand where there was no evidential basis to support such findings. Accordingly, the employer's cross-appeal was allowed on those grounds. 

Immigration – Asylum. The defendant Secretary of State's letters, refusing the claimant's application to revoke his deportation order, stated that no right of appeal arose because the claimant's submissions had not amounted to a fresh claim. The claimant sought judicial review. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), in dismissing the application, held that submissions purporting to be a human rights claim did not, without more, trigger a right of appeal and para 353 of the Immigration Rules provided the mechanism to determine whether they amounted to a claim. As the claimant's submissions had been determined not to have been a claim, there was no decision and, thus, no right of appeal. 

European Union – Regulations. The General Court of the European Union allowed the action brought by Mr Chafiq Ayadi for annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 954/2009, amending Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 (imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban), in so far as that act concerned Mr Ayadi. 

Adoption – Dispensing with consent of parent or guardian. The Family Court made an adoption order regarding E, a two-year old boy, where the mother was a recovering heroin addict with alcohol issues and had been in a relationship with E's father, who had behaved violently to her. 

Divorce – Financial provision. The parties divorced and when it came to assessing financial remedies the wife sought not to enforce a post nuptial agreement. The Family Division applying recent case law held that the agreement was enforceable as it had been entered into freely by the wife, and with full appreciation of its implications. 

Value added tax – Input tax. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (the tribunal) dismissed the appeal by the taxpayer company against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) that the fact that missing trader intra-community fraud had not been established by the Revenue and Customs Commissioners did not preclude the Revenue from denying the recovery of input tax. However, the tribunal further decided that the FTT had been wrong in its finding that the taxpayer should have carried further checks 'down the chain', as that would have been a 'formidable task'. 

Trade mark – Infringement. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, considered appeals by both parties in proceedings brought by the appellant companies (Mattel), which controlled the rights in the well known game 'SCRABBLE' in the European Union, to prevent the respondent company (Zynga) from selling an electronic game called 'SCRAMBLE' or 'SCRAMBLE WITH FRIENDS'. The court, among other things, dismissed Mattel's appeal in relation to infringement of the SCRABBLE CTMs and passing off. 

Medical practitioner – Disciplinary panel. The appellant Professional Standards Authority referred to the Administrative Court the decision of the Conduct and Competence Committee (the CCC) of the first respondent Health and Care Professions Council (the Council), imposing a caution order for a period of five years for bullying and sexual harassment. The court, in dismissing the appeal, upheld the CCC's findings on three allegations and found it would be a gross breach of fair hearing procedure to allow their amendment after the evidence had been heard. Further, the sanction imposed by the CCC had not been unduly lenient, and its reasons had been intelligible and sufficient. 

Landlord and tenant – Premises. The issue on the appeal was whether a right to manage (RTM) company could acquire the management of more than one set of premises, as defined in s 72 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that references in s 72 of the Act to 'premises' were to a single, self-contained building or part of the building, and that, likewise, references to 'the premises' or 'premises' or 'any premises' in ss 73, 74, 78 and 79 and other provisions of the Act were references to a single, self-contained building or part of the building. Accordingly, it was not open to an RTM company to acquire the right to manage more than one self-contained building or part of a building. 

Privilege – Legal professional privilege. The present proceedings concerned whether certain passages in the claimants' re-amended particulars of claim should be struck out on the basis that they referred to matters protected by legal professional privilege. The Chancery Division, in dismissing the application, held, inter alia, that privilege in the relevant documents had been waived by the fourth defendant and, failing that, the third defendant.