Latest Cases

European Union – Taxation. The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that art 110 TFEU should be interpreted as: – not precluding a member state from introducing a tax on motor vehicles which was levied on imported second-hand vehicles at the time of their first registration in that member state and on vehicles already registered in that member state at the time of the first transfer, within that member state, of the ownership of those vehicles; – precluding that member state from exempting from that tax vehicles already registered and in respect of which a tax had previously been in force but found to be incompatible with EU law had been paid. 

Immigration – Detention. He claimant issued judicial review proceedings, seeking a declaration that some or all of his immigration detention between 5 December 2009 and 26 March 2014 had been unlawful. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application in part, held that, by 16 September 2013, there had been no realistic prospect of removal within a reasonable time, and the claimant should have been released and detention had become unlawful on that date. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The appellant appealed against an order in which a master dismissed the appellant's application to set aside default judgment. The Queen's Bench Division gave consideration to CPR 13.31 and allowed the appeal on the basis that the appellant had a real prospect of successfully defending the claim. 

Employment – Appeal. The employee, an employment tribunal lay member, brought a claim, alleging part-time worker discrimination. The comparator was rejected and the claim was dismissed. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, dismissing the appeal, held that the tribunal had not decided the point based on his own experience, rather than on the evidence. The decision had been plainly correct. 

Conflict of laws – Foreign law. The claimant New Zealand nationals claimed damages for personal injury allegedly resulting from defective prosthetic hip implants manufactured by the defendant. The proceedings concerned the determination of the preliminary issue of whether their claims were precluded by s 317 of the New Zealand Accident Compensation Act 2001. The Queen's Bench Division held that the statutory bar in s 317(1) of the Act had substantive effect and its application was not limited to the courts of New Zealand. Further, there was no additional conduct or other requirement under New Zealand law before the statutory bar in s 317(1) of the Act applied. 

Statute – Construction. The appellant, a police corporal in the police service in Trinidad and Tobago, sought compensation, under the Protective Services (Compensation) Act 1996 Act, after he fell at work and fractured his spine. The compensation committee concluded that it had no jurisdiction to award compensation as the injury which the appellant had suffered was not one covered under the Act. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's appeal. The Privy Council, allowing the appeal, held that, by inadvertence, the draftsman and Parliament, had failed to give effect to the statutory intention of importing complementary provisions of a previous Act, providing for the quantification of benefits in cases of permanent partial disablement. In light of the obvious and particular error which had occurred, the introduction of a provision resembling one in the previous Act, which made provision for compensation for permanent partial disablement resulting from injury not specified in the schedule to the Act was a permissible and necessary insertion. 

Employment – Unfair dismissal. The employment tribunal (the tribunal) had found that the employee had been constructively dismissed as a result of three acts of harassment related to her sex. It upheld her claims for unfair dismissal and harassment. The employee appealed against the dismissal of her claim for compensation for loss of a chance. The employer appealed against the finding that the act of constructive dismissal was in itself an act of harassment. It also appealed against awards made to the employee for injury to feelings, which had been grossed up on the basis that it would be liable to income tax. The Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed the employee's appeal against the remedy judgment concerning loss of chance and the employer's appeal against the finding of harassment where the tribunal had been entitled to reach those conclusions on the evidence. It allowed the appeal against the finding that constructive dismissal was in itself an act of harassment. On the true construction of the Equality Act 2010, a resignation which amounted to a constructive dismissal did not fall within the meaning of harassment. The employer's appeal against the award of compensation for injury to feeling was allowed where, on the true construction of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003, such an award was not liable to income tax. 

Equity – Breach of confidence. The claimant brought a claim for damages against the defendant Chief Constable of Essex Police arising from a press release by Essex Police. The Queens Bench Division held that the release of the information had not been reasonably necessary and proportionate in all the circumstances of the case and the claimant was awarded damages, including £57,750 special damages for loss of earnings. 

European Union – Jurisdiction. In the course of a dispute concerning alleged unlawful means conspiracy, the claimant company sought injunctive relief against the defendants. The Chancery Division, in dismissing the application, held that the actual damage had not occurred in the English and Welsh jurisdiction, and the court had no jurisdiction to hear the claims as presently set out. 

Town and country planning – Change of use. The local authority had granted planning permission for the change of use of a second hand car sales site to a car hire business with ancillary office space. The business was on a scrap metal yard. The applicant had been refused permission to apply for judicial review of the authority's decision as the development proposal had not come within the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 1999, SI 1999/293. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the applicant's appeal as the proposal did not qualify as a change to or an extension of an 'industrial estate development project' as the scrap metal yard could not be so described in accordance with the first column of para 10(a) of the table in Sch 2 to the Regulations.