Latest Cases

Employment – Discrimination. The employee had commenced proceedings against the employer, alleging disability discrimination. She sought to add claims of discrimination related to pregnancy and maternity and sex discrimination. The employment tribunal (the tribunal) refused permission to amend. The employee appealed. The Employee Appeal Tribunal, allowing the appeal, held that the tribunal had failed to apply settled principles. 

European Union – Consumer protection. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art 3(5) of, and points (b) and (c) of Annex A to, Directive (EC) 2003/54 of the European Parliament and of the Council (concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity), and art 3(3) of, and points (b) and (c) of Annex A to, Directive (EC) 2003/55 of the European Parliament and of the Council (concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas). The requests had been made in two sets of proceedings, respectively between Ms Schulz and Technische Werke Schussental GmbH und Co. KG (TWS) and between Mr Egbringhoff and Stadtwerke Ahaus GmbH (SA) concerning the use, by TWS and SA respectively, of allegedly unlawful clauses in consumer contracts covered by a universal supply obligation. 

Mental health – Mental defective. The claimant local authority sought a declaration that the defendant local authority was responsible for funding the care of a young woman, VC, with a troubled mental health history, pursuant to s 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983, in the period following her discharge from detention under s 3 of the Act. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that the defendant's facility had become VC's place of residence for the purpose of s 117 of the Act at the point when she had moved there without any place having been held open for her elsewhere. 

Telecommunications – Mobile telephone networks. The proceedings concerned the United Kingdom's maintenance in force of a restriction (the commercial use restriction) on the commercial use of a piece of telecommunications equipment known as a 'GSM gateway'. The claimants contended that the commercial use restriction amounted to a prohibition on the commercial use of GSM gateways and was in breach of European Union law. At first instance, the claim was dismissed, and the claimants appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the judge had not erred in dismissing the claim. 

Sentence – Confiscation order. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in dismissing the defendant's appeal against a confiscation order, held that funds and credits paid into the defendant's bank account by a friend, whom he had allowed to use the account, had fallen squarely within the benefit provisions of s 76(4) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. 

Winding up – Liquidator. In the course of the liquidation of the Comet group, the claimant liquidators made an application for disclosure. In allowing the application, the Companies Court held that the benefit likely to be gained by the liquidators as a result of making the order substantially outweighed the burden likely to be imposed on the respondent companies. 

Charity – Charitable trust. The husband and wife were involved in the conservation of the rare Chinese tiger. Their relationship broke down and the wife petitioned for divorce. She sought financial relief. The issue arose as to whether a charitable organisation controlled by the husband and wife was a post-nuptial settlement (PNS). The Family Division held that, on its true construction, the organisation was not a PNS. 

Education – Special educational needs. The claimant was the mother of a child who had special educational needs (SEN). The local authority, in drawing up a new SEN statement, named a school which was not the claimant's preferred choice. The claimant appealed to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal, which ordered the SEN statement to name the claimant's preferred school. The defendant Local Government Ombudsman (LGO) rejected the claimant's complaint that the authority had failed to provide her child with any education between November 2007 and June 2008. Her application for judicial review was dismissed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, rejected the argument that the LGO had jurisdiction to investigate the consequences of a decision, if investigation of the decision itself was excluded by s 26(6) of the Local Government Act 1974. 

Time – Extension of time. The applicant had applied for permission to extend the time for filing its respondent's notice to an appeal. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the principles laid down in Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Ltd ([2014] 2 All ER 430) as explained in Denton and others v TH White Ltd and another; Decadent Vapours Ltd v Bevan and others; Utilise TDS Ltd v Davies and others ([2014] All ER (D) 53 (Jul)) applied to applications for an extension of time. Applying those principles, the application was allowed. 

Natural justice – Duty to act fairly. Proceedings for judicial review of the defendant local authority's council tax reduction scheme, on the basis that the consultation had been unfair, were dismissed at first instance and on appeal. The Supreme Court, in allowing the claimant's appeal, considered the scope of a public authority's duty to consult. It found that the authority's consultation had been unfair, as it had not referred to other ways of absorbing the shortfall in council tax and those other options had not been obvious. However, it would not be proportionate to order the authority to undertake a fresh consultation exercise.