Latest Cases

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. 

Family law – Parentage. Sheriff Court: Granting decree as craved in an action in which the pursuer sought declarator that he was not the father of a child conceived and born while he and the child's mother were married, the court held that there was more than ample evidence to prove on the balance of probabilities that the pursuer was not the child's father. 

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 

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. 

Disabled person – Discrimination. The claimants were severely disabled people who sought judicial review of the Minister for Disabled People's decision to close the Independent Living Fund. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the Minister had had sufficient information to enable him to discharge the public sector equality duty and he had gone about the exercise with the requisite thoroughness, conscientiousness and care. Accordingly, there had been no breach of the public sector equality duty. 

Coroner – Inquest. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant coroner's decision not to hold an inquest with a jury into the death of his mother. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the coroner had not erred in law by concluding that there had been no evidence before her upon which to found a legitimate suspicion that there had been a systemic failure inherent in the surgical procedure that the claimant's mother had undergone. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The parents, who were divorced, originated from Algeria but lived in the United Kingdom. The applicant mother applied to the Family Division for permission to take her children to Algeria. The court held that it was not in the interest of the children to allow the application. 

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. 

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. 

Practice – Family proceedings. The Family Division adjourned a hearing in respect of financial matters and required the parties to return to court with a single composite bundle of documents, in circumstances where the relevant practice directions had not been complied with.