Latest Cases

Employment – Dismissal. In proceedings relating to alleged unfair dismissal, the question arose of whether the employees had been assigned to an organised grouping of employees within the meaning of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 SI 2006/246. The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that, among other things, the judge had failed to consider the organisational structure of the putative transferor and the role of the claimants. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The claimant failed to enter a witness statement in time for statements to be exchanged and nevertheless sought to adduce the witness statement seeking relief from sanctions under CPR 3.9. The court was prepared to admit certain parts of the witness statement but not others as it would cause prejudice to the defendant. 

Mental health – Persons who lack capacity. The patient had learning difficulties and was on the autistic spectrum. He lacked capacity. He required an operation to treat cancer, which he did not want to undergo. The relevant NHS Trust sought an order that it was in his best interests for the surgery to take place. The Court of Protection held that it was overwhelmingly in the best interests of the patient to undergo the surgery. 

Minor – Removal outside jurisdiction. The proceedings concerned the abduction of two boys, who, in 2012, were taken to Russia by their father and were only returned to the care of their mother in June 2014, after strenuous efforts by the English and Russian authorities. The father sought to resume contact with the boys and their younger brother. A fact-finding hearing was convened. The Family Division made findings as to the events between 2012 and 2014 and concluded that the father's expressions of regret were not genuine. 

Elections – Local government. The petitioner, an independent candidate at a local government election, brought the election petition, under s 127 of the Representation of the People Act 1983, to challenge the validity of the election. The Election Court, in dismissing the petition, held that, as a matter of law, r 45(3A) of the Parliamentary Election Rules contained in Sch 1 to the Act applied only to parliamentary election counts and did not apply to local government election counts. Further, the Returning Officer had not been guilty of any act, omission or breach of duty in relation to the election and the first respondents had been duly elected. 

Injunction – Mandatory injunction. The Commercial Court refused the claimant company's application for a final anti-suit injunction coupled with a mandatory injunction ordering the defendant company to discontinue proceedings issued in China. It held that, in the absence of sufficient evidence, the court could not have the necessary high degree of assurance that the defendant's submission would fail. 

Contract – Repudiation. The claimant, Tigris, had claimed damages against the first defendant, CSA, and the return of a deposit paid under an agreement for the purchase of six aircraft. The judge dismissed those claims and allowed CSA's counterclaim. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, did not accept that CSA had been in breach, let alone a repudiatory breach, of its contract. In the circumstances, the appeal would be dismissed. However, the amount awarded on CSA's counterclaim would be reduced by $10m, less the sum representing parking charges for which Tigris had accepted liability. 

Employment – Contract of service. The claimant brought proceedings against his former employers. The principal issues were whether, under his contract of employment, he had become, or had been entitled to become, a member of the first defendant company and, if so, on what terms as to profit share and capital interest. The Chancery Division made a number of rulings, but held that further submissions were required regarding the effects of s 4(4) of the Limited Liability Partnership Act 2000 on the case. 

European Union – Consumer protection. The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled, inter alia, that the second sentence of art 23(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council (on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community) should be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of a computerised booking system such as that at issue in the main proceedings, the final price to be paid had to be indicated whenever the prices of air services were shown, including when they were shown for the first time. 

Solicitor – Disciplinary proceedings. The claimant Law Society applied for an injunction making permanent prohibitions against the defendant, S, to prevent him holding himself out as a solicitor or becoming involved with legal work. The Chancery Division held that while, on the evidence, the Law Society could not invoke the court's supervisory jurisdiction over S to obtain the relief that it sought, the relief sought by the Law Society would be granted in the exercise of the court's power under s 41(4)(c) of the Legal Services Act 2007.