Latest Cases

Trust and trustee – Trust of land. The proceedings concerned a dispute as to the ownership of a property. Under the terms of a deed made between the parties, it was declared that, upon the lease of the property in issue being completed, the property would be owned beneficially by the claimant. The defendant did not respond to letters from solicitors requesting that she transfer the property to the claimant. The claimant issued proceedings and the judge found that the claimant was entitled to an order that the property be conveyed to him. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the defendant's appeal, held that, on the evidence before him, the judge had been entitled to reach the conclusion that the deed should not be set aside on the grounds of undue influence. 

Employment tribunal – Procedure. The employee had previously brought claims against the employer in respect of unlawful deductions. The employee later brought a claim against the employer, alleging that her dismissal had been unfair and by reason of having made public interest disclosures. The employment tribunal regarded the claim as an abuse and struck out those parts of the claim. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in allowing the employee's appeal, determined that the judge had, inter alia, erred in having placed heavy emphasis on the delay in bringing the claims and had failed to show that he had appreciated the very great difference between the unlawful deduction claims and the more complex, demanding claims involving whistleblowing. 

Prison – Prisoner. The claimant, a prisoner serving an indefinite sentence for the protection of the public, sought judicial review of the lawfulness of a prison service instruction (the PSI), in particular, the restrictions on prisoners' receipt or use of books. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that there was no good reason, in the light of the importance of books to prisoners, to restrict possession beyond what was required by volumetric control and reasonable measures relating to the frequency of parcels and security considerations. Accordingly, insofar as it included books in the Incentives and Earned Privileges Scheme, the PSI was unlawful. 

Minor – Abduction. In an appeal by the mother against an order granted by the High Court for the summary return of a child, A, to Russia, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, considered whether the principle of effective access to justice for a child was engaged in the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction relating to the abduction or retention of a child where neither the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of Child Abduction nor Council Regulation (EC) 2201/2003 (concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000) applied. In allowing the appeal, the court held that there was an obligation in principle on the High Court sitting in its inherent jurisdiction in relation to an abduction application to consider whether and how to hear the child concerned. 

Building contract – Adjudication. A dispute arose between the claimant contractor and the defendant employer in respect of the claimant's application for interim payment for work done under a building contract. The claimant sought summary judgment to enforce a decision in its favour in an adjudication and for a declaration that the adjudicator in a second adjudication, brought by the defendant, lacked jurisdiction. The Technology and Construction Court, in granting summary judgment, held that the claimant was entitled to a declaration that the decision in the second adjudication was invalid for want of jurisdiction where the question in issue had to be taken to have been decided in the first adjudication 

Sentencing – Punishment part – Murder. High Court of Justiciary: Refusing an appeal by the Crown against the punishment part of a life sentence for murder, the court concluded that although, when sentencing the respondent for the murder of his wife by stabbing her the judge, in selecting a punishment part as low as 12 years, undoubtedly imposed a lenient sentence, the punishment part could not be said to be unduly lenient. 

Discrimination – Employment. The employee appealed against a decision of the employment tribunal, which dismissed his claim of indirect age discrimination. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in allowing the employee's appeal, determined that the tribunal had erred in law in its approach to the question of 'particular disadvantage' for the purposes of s 19(2)(b) of the Equality Act 2010. Further, it had not given reasons which complied with Meek v City of Birmingham District Council [1987] IRLR 250, for its conclusion as to whether the provision, criterion or practice which the employer had applied had been a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, for the purposes of s 19(2)(d) of the Act. 

Employment tribunal – Jurisdiction. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (the EAT) heard a cross-appeal by the respondent and an appeal by the appellant employer. In respect of the cross-appeal, the EAT upheld the decision of the employment tribunal that the respondent was not an employee and therefore the tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain claims for, inter alia, unfair dismissal. Consequently, the respondent's cross-appeal against that decision was dismissed. In respect of the appeal, the EAT upheld the tribunal's decision that the respondent was a 'limb b' worker as defined in s 230(3)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, thereby entitling the tribunal to entertain claims for, inter alia, direct disability discrimination. Accordingly, the appellants' appeal was dismissed. 

Occupier's liability – Common duty of care. The claimant fell on local authority property. She brought an action in negligence and the court found the local authority negligent with the claimant being 50% contributorily negligent. The local authority appealed. The Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the judge on the basis that is had been reasonably foreseeable that the claimant would fall. 

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.