Latest Cases

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. 

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. 

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. 

Public procurement – Public contracts. The proceedings concerned whether the way in which it had been decided to deliver the new government policy of tax-free childcare was lawful under domestic and EU public procurement legislation. The judge dismissed the claimant's claim that the proposed arrangements were in breach of the Public Contracts Regulations 2006, SI 2006/5, and art 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the claimant's appeal. 

Immigration – Asylum seeker. The claimant asylum seeker sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decisions, repeatedly refusing to treat his further submissions as amounting to a fresh claim and continuing to detain him when she was on notice of medical reports concerning his mental health and torture claim. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the claimant had not established that he had a realistic prospect of success before a fresh immigration judge. Further, there was no independent evidence of torture and the reports had not said that the claimant's symptoms could not be managed in detention. 

Ward of court – Practice. The Family Division considered two cases, both of which were brought ex parte by local authorities who were concerned that a number of young people, all minors in their areas, were at risk of leaving the United Kingdom to travel to ISIS countries, particularly Syria. In both sets of proceedings the young people were made wards of court and orders were made relating to the retrieval of the passport of each of the young people concerned. The court considered the core principles which were applicable to such applications. 

Bankruptcy – Order in aid of British court. The defendant obtained judgment against the claimants and served statutory demands on them. They were subsequently made bankrupt. The claimants submitted that the orders ought to have contained a statement notifying them that they could apply to have the orders set aside, varied or stayed. The Chancery Division held that an order under r 6.5(1) of the Insolvency Rules 1986, SI 1986/1925, did not have to state that the debtor could apply to have it set aside, varied or stayed and, therefore, that the orders were not defective. 

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. 

Personal injury – Liability – Occupiers' liability – Health and safety. Sheriff Court: In an action in which a social care worker sought reparation from the landlords of a housing development for tenants with social care needs for an injury she sustained when she fell into a hole in the courtyard of the development, the court was satisfied that the pursuer had proved a case under regs 4(2) and 12(2)(a) of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992, and under the Occupiers Liability (Scotland) Act 1960, and that there had been no contributory negligence. 

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.