Latest Cases

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

Income tax – Investment income. The taxpayer had made withdrawals from life insurance policies with Zurich Life (Zurich) that he had invested in. Under the Income Tax (Trading and Other Income) Act 2005, each withdrawal had produced a deemed gain, with the result that he was liable to pay some US$560,000 in tax to the Revenue and Customs Commissioners. That large tax liability was the direct result of the taxpayer selecting the wrong option on the claim form provided by Zurich. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) allowed the taxpayer's appeal against an amendment of his tax returns by the Revenue on the ground of rectification alone.