Latest Cases

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. 

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. 

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 

Employment – Disability. The employment tribunal had decided that the employee specialist registrar had not been disabled within the meaning of s 6 of the Equality Act 2010. The Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed the employee's appeal against that decision deciding that the tribunal had been entitled to conclude, on the evidence before it, that the impairment relied on by the employee did not have a substantial adverse effect on the employee's day-to-day activities. It further decided that the tribunal had not misdirected itself as to the meaning of 'long-term'. 

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. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed an appeal by the Secretary of State and the second defendant developer against a decision quashing a grant of planning permission. It held that the planning inspector had been scrupulously fair to the objectors and the criticisms of him had been without foundation. 

Town and country planning – Planning authority. The claimant challenged, by way of judicial review, the decision of the defendant local authority to allow the Uppingham neighbourhood development plan to proceed to a neighbourhood planning referendum. The Administrative Court dismissed the claim. It held, inter alia, that, on an overall reading of the screening report and knowledge of the author's clear recognition of what the legislation had required of him, he had not failed to consider the positive environmental effects when he had concluded that there had been no significant environmental effects. 

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. 

Insolvency – Voluntary arrangement. The Revenue and Customs Commissioners (the Revenue) had assessed the appellant, H, as owing a considerable amount of VAT. H's proposals for entering into an individual voluntary arrangement were rejected and the Revenue's claim was accepted. She appealed unsuccessfully to the registrar, and then to the Chancery Division. The court held that the registrar had not erred, and consequently dismissed her appeal. 

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.