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. 

Town and country planning – Planning permission. The applicant sought judicial review of the respondent local planning authority's grant of outline planning permission to a developer where the relevant site was near breeding populations of woodlark and nightjar. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, hearing the case at first instance, dismissed the application. It held, inter alia, that the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, SI 2010/490, supplemented by the National Planning Policy Framework, did not require a planning authority to undertake a 'shadow assessment' or other quasi-appropriate assessment in respect of sites which were not proposed Special Protection Areas (pSPA). In the present case, the proposed site was not a pSPA, there had been no duty to consult Natural England and the advice given by that body had been no more than a material consideration to have been taken into account. 

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. 

Town and country planning – Development. The appellant appealed against the decision of the inspector appointed by the defendant Secretary of State, affirming the refusal of a certificate of lawfulness of existing use or development on the basis that he was deprived of the four year limitation period in s 171B(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 due to his deliberate concealment. The Planning Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the principle laid down in Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and another ([2011] 4 All ER 851) had not been replaced by ss 171BA to 171BC of the Act and the inspector had not failed to apply that principle correctly. 

Claim form – Service. The claimant banking institution brought a claim against the defendant construction management company concerning advice provided to it on proposed lending opportunities. The issue was whether a deputy master had erred in holding that service of the claim form by email be amounted to good service, pursuant to CPR 6.15. The Chancery Division, in allowing the defendant's appeal, held that the deputy master had been wrong to conclude that, on the facts, there was a good reason to make an order under CPR 6.15. 

Divorce – Financial provision. The instant case was the final hearing of an application by the wife for a full range of financial remedies following her divorce from the husband after 43 years of marriage. Following a computation of the assets, the court divided the assets on a clean break basis, having regard to the factors in s 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. 

European Union – Consumer protection. The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that Council Directive (EEC) 93/13 (on unfair terms in consumer contracts) should be interpreted as applying to standard form contracts for legal services, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, concluded by a lawyer with a natural person acting for purposes which were outside his trade, business or profession. 

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. 

Trade mark – Infringement. The claimant and the defendants were competitors in the field of vehicle rental services. The claimant alleged that the defendant had infringed the claimant's Community trade mark, pursuant to, among other things, art 9(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) 40/94 (on the Community Trade Mark) and had committed passing off. The Chancery Division held that, the inherent distinctive character of the trade mark in issue and its enhanced distinctive character were factors which supported the existence of a likelihood of confusion. The claim for passing off was made out for essentially the same reasons as its claim under art 9(1)(b). 

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.