Latest Cases

Employment – Disability. The employer police force appealed against a finding of the employment tribunal that the disabled police officer's transfer to a role which she never taken up prior to medical retirement had amounted to a breach of s 21 of the Equality Act 2010. The Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed the employer's appeal, deciding that the tribunal's decision on that point could not stand, as the correct question had been whether the transfer role would have represented a reasonable adjustment. 

Contract – Construction. The claimant company provided video-on-demand movie streaming services. The defendant company was a video broadband software designer and developer and a managed services provider. The claimant applied for an order for the delivery up of source code and related documentation, which was held by an escrow agent. The Chancery Division, in determining a preliminary issue, held that, on the true construction of the contractual arrangements and on the facts, the claimant was entitled to delivery up of the source code by the defendant and entitled to require the defendant to procure the delivery up of the source code by escrow agents, which held the code. 

Criminal law – Defence. Two appeals were heard together, as they raised the issue as to whether the partial defence of loss of control, under ss 54 and 55 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, should have been left to the jury. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in dismissing the appeals, held that the judge had been right not to leave the defence to the jury with respect to the first defendant. As to the second defendant, there was no reason to disagree with the judge's analytical assessment that there had been insufficient evidence that the killing had resulted from any loss of self-control. 

Children and young persons – Parental orders. The applicants sought parental orders in respect of children that had been conceived through a surrogacy arrangement in India in circumstances where the applications had been made outside the six month time limit and where there was a possibility that the surrogate had been married at the relevant time. The surrogate could not be found, although she had previously provided an affidavit consenting to the applicants becoming parents. The Family Court determined that, despite the delay, there were benefits in allowing the applications to proceed. Further, the surrogate's husband had not consented to the arrangement and the surrogate's consent was not required on the ground that she could not be found. All other criteria of s 54 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 having been met, the parental orders would be made. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. An issue arose regarding contact between an elderly man with dementia and a friend of his (M). Contact was opposed by the man's son and attorneys and advised against by his consultant. The local authority had conducted a best interests procedure which had determined that contact should not take place, but M wanted to maintain the relationship. Efforts at resolving the dispute failed, so the authority sought the permission of the Court of Protection to apply for determination of the dispute. The application was opposed by the son and attorneys. The court granted permission, as the factors in s 50 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 had been met. 

Bankruptcy – Appeal. The Chancery Division considered an appeal against a decision of the Chief Registrar, in which he declined to annul a bankruptcy order made against K, a Russian businessman. The court held that, while the Chief Registrar had erred in principle in his approach to his jurisdiction to annul the bankruptcy order, the court had not had a discretion to annul the order, and the appeal would be dismissed. 

Immigration – Asylum seeker. The claimants sought permission to seek judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decisions that they should be removed to Hungary for the purpose of processing their respective asylum applications, under Council Regulation (EC) 343/2003. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), in refusing the applications, held that evidentially, neither claimants' case was arguably sufficient to displace the strong presumption, which was one of the pillars of the Regulation regime, that Hungary would comply with its relevant international obligations, in particular, under art 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Sentence – Imprisonment. The offender was convicted of, among other things, indecent assault contrary to s 15(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 (count 1). The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that it appeared that the sentencing judge had been overly influenced by the sentencing regime at the time the offending had been committed. The sentence in respect of count one was increased from four and-a-half years' imprisonment to eight and-a-half years' imprisonment. 

Unfair dismissal – Burden of proof. The employment tribunal dismissed the employee's claims that he had been automatically unfairly dismissed for a reason connected with a transfer under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006, SI 2006/246. The Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed the employee's appeal only on the ground that the tribunal had failed to apply the relevant principle regarding the burden of proof in unfair dismissal cases. The case would be remitted to the same tribunal to reconsider the employee's claims. 

Employment – Disability. The employees, who were disabled, had each received a formal warning for disability related absence, leading to the loss of their bonuses under the employer's discretionary bonus scheme. The employment tribunal upheld the employees' claims for disability related discrimination. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (the EAT) dismissed the employer's appeal, deciding that the employees had satisfied the test set out in s 15(1)(a) of the Equality Act 2010 with the result that the discrimination had been made out. The EAT further rejected the employer's justification defence.