Latest Cases

Employment – Transfer of undertakings. The claimant submitted that her employment had been transferred to a company under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006, SI 2006/246, and that she had been harassed and unfairly dismissed. The employment tribunal held that the company was the claimant's employer and that she had been unfairly constructively dismissed. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, allowing the company's appeal, held that the tribunal, comprised of a single judge, had had no power to hear the claim relating to harassment on the grounds of religion and it had failed to give clear reasons in respect of its finding that there had been a transfer under TUPE. The case was remitted for a rehearing. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Three-N-Products Private Ltd (TPPL) against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), relating to opposition proceedings between TPPL and Munindra Holding BV (Munindra) concerning the application by Munindra for registration of a word sign 'PRANAYUR' as a Community trade mark. 

Immigration – Asylum seeker. The respondent, a Jamaican national, came to the United Kingdom and claimed asylum on the grounds of his risk of persecution in Jamaica due to the fact that he was a homosexual. He was detained pending a decision on removal, under a fast-tracking procedure, as Jamaica was on a list of states designated under s 94(4) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. He applied for judicial review of the Secretary of State's decision to include Jamaica in the designated list. A deputy judge dismissed the application. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the claimant's appeal. The Supreme Court, in dismissing the Secretary of State's appeal, held that, on its true construction, s 94(5) of the Act referred to countries, or parts of countries, where its citizens were free from any serious risk of systematic persecution, either by the state itself or by non-state agents which the state was unable or unwilling to control. 

Tort – Joint tortfeasors. The appellant organisation 'Sea Shepherd UK' (SSUK) was part of an international effort to end the illegal fishing of blue fin tuna. One campaign orchestrated by the American parent organisation had caused damage to the respondent's vessel and released a large quantity of tuna from the nets and cages. The respondent issued proceedings seeking damages and alleged that SSUK had been a joint tortfeasor because it had acted in furtherance of a common design by supplying the vessel which had rammed its own. The judge held that SSUK was not a joint tortfeasor. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the respondent's appeal. The Supreme Court allowed SSUK's appeal and held that the judge had been entitled to find that its contribution to the tort had, on the evidence, been de minimis. 

Sunday – Dies non juridicus. The applicant city council applied to strike out the respondent parish council's claim to quash its development plan document. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that, as the last day of the six week period for making the claim, under s 113(4) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, had fallen on a Sunday, the six-week period was to be treated as expiring on the next day when the court office had been open. Accordingly, the claim had been brought within time. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union allowed the action brought by FSA Srl (FSA) for annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), relating to invalidity proceedings between Motokit Veículos e Acessórios, SA, and FSA, concerning the application by FSA for registration of a word sign 'FSA K-FORCE' as a Community trade mark. 

Shipping – Bill of lading. In a shipping dispute, the Commercial Court considered two preliminary issues. It held that, on the evidence, the first claimant was to be regarded as the owner of the goods in question from the date of the receipt of the bill of lading, and that the claimants had suffered any loss as a result of the alleged damage. 

Company – Administrator. The applicant creditors of a company in administration applied for orders that: (i) the remuneration of the respondent administrators was excessive and should be either disallowed entirely or reduced; and (ii) that the administrators should pay the costs of the application personally and not as an expense of the administration. The Companies Court rejected the contention that the administrators, appointed under Insolvency Act 1986, could not or should not have made the statement as to the statutory purpose, as required under para 29(3)(b) of Sch B1 to the Act, which had led to their appointment. Further, the argument that they should not be entitled to any remuneration at all for their services was rejected. Once the decision to appoint administrators had been made, the responsibility on the prospective administrator in considering whether the statement as to the statutory purpose could be made was to look ahead at what would or might happen during the administration if he was appointed, and not behind at the motives which might have led the directors to choose to make the appointment. 

Solicitor – Solicitor and client. The claimant sought damages against the defendant firm of solicitors, which had acted for him in the proposed purchase of a property in 2010. The proposed vendor did not complete and was subsequently made bankrupt, and the claimant lost his deposit. The claimant submitted that, having advised of the risk of insolvency, the solicitor who had advised him had had a duty to take steps to explore the extent of that risk, by making searches that would have revealed the existence of the bankruptcy petition. The Chancery Division, in dismissing the claim, held that the solicitor had not been under any duty to make the suggested searches prior to exchange of contracts. The risks had been adequately explained to a person of the claimant's experience and he had, in fact, understood the advice he had been given. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The court made an order that 500 pages of court be bundle be translated. The legal aid authority to whom the order was directed refused the application and the matter was referred back before a judge. The Family Court held that it was not 'necessary' under Bundles Practice Direction, Family Procedure Rules 2010 SI 2955/10, PD 27A, para 5.1, for the 500 pages to be translated and that only 51 pages were necessary and that proper compliance with PD27A and, in particular, strict adherence to the bundle page limit, was an essential tool in the struggle to control the costs of family litigation.