Latest Cases

Child – Care. The principal issue was whether the defendant local authority had provided accommodation for the claimant as a looked after child, under ss 20 and 23(2) of the Children Act 1989, when she had started living with her grandmother. The Administrative Court held that the authority had come under a duty under s 20 of the Act and that the circumstances pointed to the conclusion that the authority had exercised its duty to accommodate the claimant under s 23(2) of the Act and had not arranged a private family fostering under s 23(6) of the Act. 

Medical practitioner – Regulatory body. The respondent surgeon's application for registration as a specialist in trauma and orthopaedic surgery was refused by the appellant General Medical Council's (GMC) registration appeal panel (the panel). The county court judge allowed the respondent's appeal and identified what it determined to be legal errors in the panel's decision. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the GMC's appeal in part, held that, with one exception, the legal errors that the judge had identified had not been errors at all. Subject to that point, the panel had correctly directed itself in law. 

Employment – Transfer of trade, business or undertaking. The third respondent, who was employed by the second respondent, carried out harassment of the employee before and after her transfer to the first respondent. The employment tribunal held, among other things, that the second respondent was vicariously liable for the third respondent's acts while the employee was employed by it, but not after her transfer. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, among other things, held that the employee's appeal against the tribunal's failure to hold the first respondent liable for the acts of harassment committed by the third respondent had to be allowed. 

Local authority – Statutory powers. The claimants issued judicial review proceedings, challenging the lawfulness of the type of accommodation and level of support provided to them by the defendant local authority, pursuant to s 17 of the Children Act 1989 (the 1989 Act) and the Human Rights Act 1998. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the authority's assessments of the children's needs had met its duty pursuant to s 17 of the 1989 Act. Further, accommodating the family in a bed and breakfast had not been unlawful in the circumstances. 

Employment – Victimisation. The employment tribunal dismissed the employee's claims of detrimental treatment on grounds of protected disclosure, under s 47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996, among other things. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in dismissing the employee's appeal, held that it had not been persuaded that any error of law had been made out. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. In considering cost and delay in two cases, the Court of Protection expressed the view that the case management provisions in the Court of Protection Rules had proved inadequate on their own to secure the necessary changes in practice. 

Limitation of action – When time begins to run. The police constabulary had settled a claim for personal injury and sought a contribution from the local authority. The judge found that the contribution proceedings were statute barred under s 10(4) of the Limitation Act 1980 and dismissed the claim. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the constabulary's appeal on the basis that the case had fallen within s 10(4) of the Act, and not s 10(3) as the constabulary contended. On the correct interpretation of s 10(4), time had started to run from settlement of the damages, and not from settlement as to costs, with the result that the contribution proceedings had been statute barred. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. The Court of Protection considered an application by a health provider to withdraw artificial nutrition and hydration from AB, who had been unconscious since 2005 with no prospect of recovery. The court held that it was in AB's best interests for artificial nutrition and hydration to be withdrawn. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Simba Toys GmbH & Co. KG (Simba) for annulment of the decision by the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) relating to cancellation proceedings between Simba and Seven Towns Ltd in respect of the registration by the latter company of a three-dimensional sign as a Community trade mark. 

Unfair dismissal – Constructive dismissal. The present appeal against a decision of the employment tribunal raised questions as to the interpretation and effect of a list of issues. The Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed the employee's appeal against the tribunal's decision, deciding that a list of issues was not a pleading, but a tool to facilitate a hearing, and could not be approached with the formality one might approach a commercial contract or pleading. Even if it was, the issues list in the present case could not be construed as the employee had contended.