Latest Cases

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 – 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. 

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. 

Income tax – Discounts. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) affirmed in part a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) which had upheld the decision by the Revenue and Customs Commissioners to amend the taxpayers' self-assessment tax returns on the basis that the profits made by the taxpayers on fixed rate notes stripped of interest coupons amounted to a discount of an income nature. 

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. 

Defamation – Relevancy and specification of averments. Court of Session: Dismissing an action in which the pursuers averred that the defenders had published an article which was defamatory of them in their newspaper, the court held that as a matter of law the article was not capable of bearing the meanings the pursuers contended for, and the defenders' first plea in law, which was a challenge to the relevancy and specification of the pursuers' averments, fell to be sustained. 

Patent – Infringement. The claimant owned a patent, referred to as a 'mailer', which was a form, letter or other type of business communication, which was folded, sealed with an adhesive and then sent through the post. It alleged that the defendants had infringed the patent by making and disposing mailers falling within the claims of the patent. The proceedings were stayed in respect of the second to fifth defendants. The Intellectual Property and Enterprise Court held, in respect of the first defendant, that the patent was invalid for lack of novelty over one item of prior art and for lack of inventive step over two items of prior art. 

Damages – Personal injury. Following a delay in diagnosis and treatment of the claimant's back injury, the claimant suffered very serious injuries for which she sought damages from the defendant hospital. Judgment was entered for damages to be assessed and the court was concerned with the quantification of those damages. Having regard to the facts and established law, the court made an appropriate award under the various heads. 

Particulars of claim – Amendment. NatWest had lost a cheque that had been cashed by the claimant so he had not received the money. The claimant issued proceedings in negligence against the bank, by which time it had become apparent that the account against which the cheque had been drawn had been overdrawn when the cheque had been written. The claimant had sought to amend his particulars of claim to contend that the bank would have extended the overdraft or contacted the account holder to arrange transfer of funds had NatWest presented the cheque. He was refused permission to amend his particulars as the amendments were unsustainable and the claim was dismissed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that, on the evidence that had been before him, the judge had been right not to grant permission to amend the claim.