Latest Cases

Employment tribunal – Procedure. The employee claimed constructive unfair dismissal, disability discrimination, less favourable treatment as a part-time worker and breaches of contract by the employer. The employment tribunal (the tribunal) dismissed all of the claims, save in respect of a breach of contract complaint. The issue on appeal was whether the tribunal's judgment was tainted for bias where the judge was a governor of another school in the same area as the school involved in the proceedings. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, dismissing the appeal, held that the fair-minded and informed observer would not conclude that there was any possibility of bias in the case. 

Arbitration – Award. Following an oil spillage, Spain and France had commenced proceedings to recover damages under the Spanish Penal Code. The claimant, as insurer, was involved in those proceedings. The claimant commenced arbitration proceedings in England and contended that Spain and France were bound by the terms of its contract. The claimant then applied to enforce the arbitrator's awards. Both Spain and France unsuccessfully sought to challenge the awards on the basis of no jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, upheld the dismissal of those challenges, as the obligation which Spain and France had wished to enforce against the claimant had been governed by English law. It could not be enforced otherwise than by arbitration in accordance with the contract's rules and the states had submitted to the jurisdiction of the English courts in relation to the determination of the arbitrator's jurisdiction and the claimant's application to enforce the award as a judgment. 

Employment – Unfair dismissal. The employee had claimed unfair and/or wrongful dismissal, arising out of a resignation which had been found to have been made without any notice, and where there had been no repudiatory breach by the employer. Accordingly, the employee was not entitled to any award of compensation for unfair dismissal, nor for wrongful dismissal, and had no legitimate claim for moneys due in the notice period. The employee withdrew her claim for notice pay. The employment tribunal, however, awarded £1,800 at the hearing because the employer had not provided a statement of terms and conditions of employment under s 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and £150 as a fee reimbursement because the employee had partially won her case. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, allowing the employer's appeal, held that the employee had not justified claim; she had lost her case; and there had been no jurisdiction to make an award in respect of the admitted failure of the employer to observe s 1 of the Act. 

Employment – Continuity. The employees were transferred from a company in administration to a former 90% shareholder who purchased its business. Three days later the business closed. The employees claimed arrears of pay, and holiday pay, three claimed for unpaid notice pay, and one for a redundancy payment. The employment tribunal found that there had been a transfer under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006, SI 2006/246 and that the transferor was liable for payments to the employees, which fell to the Secretary of State to discharge. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in allowing the Secretary of State's appeal, held that reg 8(3) of the Regulations did not apply to debts which had not accrued as such by the time of the transfer. Accordingly the tribunal had erred in its conclusion. Those debts which accrued prior to the transfer remained the liabilities of the transferor. The Secretary of State was only liable for those sums owed to the employees prior to the transfer. 

Tort – Wrongful interference with goods. The applicant company leased cars and sub-leased them to the first respondent company, pursuant to two contracts. The applicant brought a claim, contending that the first respondent had breached its obligations under the contracts. It applied for interim orders for delivery up and for preservation of the cars, contending that the refusal to deliver them up amounted to the wrongful interference of its goods in breach of s 4 of the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977. The Chancery Division dismissed the application, ruling that the balance of convenience clearly laid in leaving the cars in the possession of the first respondent. 

Immigration – Removal. The claimant Nigerian national sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision to remove her from the United Kingdom. The Administrative Court held that the claimant's public law challenge had to be dismissed on the findings of the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) that she had engaged in same-sex relationships in detention in order to fabricate an asylum claim. It further dismissed the claimant's human rights claim for that reason and absent evidence that her mental health would result in a breach of arts 3 or 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights if she was returned to Nigeria. 

Damages – Personal injury. The claimant was a young child that had been taken by his parents to the defendant GP in an out of hours service. It was the parents case that at that point the claimant was presenting with very serious symptoms. No immediate referral to hospital was made by the defendant. Later, the claimant was taken by his parents to the hospital where, he was diagnosed as suffering from pneumococcal meningitis. The disease caused him to suffer very severe neurological damage as a result of which he was severely, and permanently, disabled. The claimant, through his father as litigation friend, brought a case in negligence and causation against the defendant. The Queen's Bench Division held that, on the evidence, the defendant was not liable to the claimant and that there had to be judgment in the action for the defendant. 

Damages – Personal injury. The defendant admitted liability for negligence for the claimant's significant brain damage and disabilities sustained during his birth, but the parties disputed the damages to be awarded. The Queen's Bench Division held that the claimant was likely to live to be 63 years. It assessed his earnings but for his disability and determined he would have retired at age 70. The court held that the additional cost of demolishing the existing residence and building a new property was to be borne by the defendant. Further consideration was given to the future management by a deputy and multi-disciplinary team meetings. 

Practice – Summary judgment. The claimant commenced proceedings in tort and contract, alleging that his shares in a company had been undervalued as a result of a conspiracy by the defendants. The defendants successfully applied to strike out the claim, and the claimant appealed. The Chancery Division held that the Chief Master had erred in finding that the claimant's statement of case did not disclose a reasonable ground for bringing the claim, and that it had not been appropriate to dispose of the claimant's claim in deceit summarily. 

Minor – Medical treatment. D, who was 15, had been diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and Tourette's Syndrome. He was in the care of a hospital run by the second respondent local authority. A dispute arose as to whether, among other things, it had been within the scope of parental responsibility for the parents to have placed D at the hospital. The Family Division held that, on the evidence, it would be wholly disproportionate to rule that it had not been within the zone of parental responsibility to do so.