Latest Cases

Equity – Mistake. The claimant trustees of a settlement applied for an order to set aside a clause in a deed of appointment on the ground of equitable mistake. The intention had been for relevant share to remain in the settlement in order to avoid any charge on them to capital gains tax for the foreseeable future. However, the effect of the clause had been to appoint the shares and a cash sum in the first claimant absolutely. The Chancery Division, in allowing the application, ruled that the claimants were entitled to rescission where the mistakes had been causative and very serious and where it would be unconscionable in principle to leave the appointment uncorrected. 

Discrimination – Discrimination. The employee had succeeded in his claim for unlawful age discrimination before the employment tribunal and had received an award for injury to feelings and awards in respect of holiday pay, including an award in respect of holidays to which the employee, as a worker, had been entitled but which he had not taken (holiday pay 3). The Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed the employer's appeal against holiday pay 3 and the employee's appeal against the amount of the award made in respect of injury to feelings. 

Employment tribunal – Jurisdiction. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (the EAT) dismissed the employee's appeal against the striking out by the employment tribunal of both his claims for unfair constructive dismissal and alleged detrimental treatment for having made protected disclosures (the whistle-blowing claim). The EAT decided that the tribunal had correctly struck out both claims. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant issued judicial review proceedings, seeking to quash the planning permission granted by the defendant minerals planning authority to a company for temporary permission for exploration and appraisal concerning an existing hydrocarbon lateral borehole. The Planning Court, in dismissing the application, held that the authority had determined the merits after a full discussion and a thorough exploration of the issues raised. The claimant's case failed, as its legal arguments neither addressed nor reflected the relevant principles and the authority had not been misled. 

Adoption – Arrangements. In a factually unusual case, a baby was removed from his birth mother with a view to adoption by A and B. Following the application to adopt by A and B, a man came forward, claiming to be the child's biological father. He was in fact so and strongly sought that his son should now move to live with his sister (the child's aunt) so that the child could grow up within his birth family and have the opportunity to enjoy a normal legal and psychological relationship with his father, paternal half-sibling, and other members of his extended, genetic paternal family, throughout his life. The Family Court agreed with that course of action and a care order was once again made in favour of the local authority. 

Employment – Terms and conditions of employment. A rule was introduced into the employees' contract of employment that they would receive the pay and conditions of a new post when they moved to it but, in any case, no later than six weeks after being informed of the selection. The claimants contended that the words 'pay and conditions of the new post' included certain supplements which went with the new post. Contrary to the finding of the employment tribunal, the Employment Appeal Tribunal determined, inter alia, that the proper construction of the rule was that it did include those supplements. 

Conflict of laws – Stay of proceedings. The liquidators of a company appealed a decision in which the court had stayed English Trust proceedings on the basis that the courts of Saudi Arabia were a more appropriate forum. The Court of Appeal (Civil Division) reversed the decision on the basis that it was not able to determine the various issues on a stay or summary judgment application. 

Design – Design right. The claimant company, DKH, made clothing. It brought proceedings against the defendant company, H Young, contending that it had infringed DKH's rights by the importation and sale of a particular style of gilet. The Intellectual Property Enterprise Court held that, among other things, DKH's design was not commonplace, and H Young's gilet infringed DKH's designs. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. In the course of group litigation connected to the supply of *** implants, an application was made for declarations against a number of additional parties. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed the application, on the ground that it had been designed to establish how much money was available from another party. That was not a matter for case management. 

Social security – Retirement pension. The proceedings concerned the entitlement of the respondent to a Category D retirement pension. The Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) (the UT) determined that G was entitled to such a pension and the Secretary of State appealed. The Court of Appeal, having considered both domestic and European law, allowed the appeal and set aside the decision of the UT.