Latest Cases

Employment – 'Worker'. The employment tribunal had decided, as a preliminary issue, that the claimants were 'workers' for the purposes of the National Minimum Wage Act 1988, thereby entitling them to pursue claims for national minimum wage and holiday pay. The Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed the employer's appeal against that finding, deciding that the tribunal had not approached the question of worker status correctly and had not given sufficient reasons for its decision. The matter was remitted to be heard afresh. 

Police – Complaint against police. The proceedings concerned an appeal against a ruling that the powers of the defendant Independent Police Complaints Commission, when reporting on a 'special requirements' investigation of a compliant about a police officer's conduct, were confined to stating whether the officer had a case to answer in misconduct proceedings and did not extend to expressing findings on the reasonableness and/or legality of the officer's conduct. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the defendant's appeal, held that, in a 'special requirements' investigation, it was beyond the powers of the investigators to purport, themselves, to decide the merits of a case that they considered had called for an answer. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in considering a father's appeal against a decision to refuse his application for permission to revoke placement orders in respect of two of his sons, held that the judge had been wrong to conclude that there had not been a change in circumstances sufficient to allow him to proceed to the second stage of the relevant test, namely whether leave should be granted. 

Adjudication – Award. The claimant engaged the first named defendant to carry out works at his flat. The defendant referred a dispute over alleged unpaid fees for work done to adjudication. The adjudicator found in favour of the claimant that the sum claimed by the defendant was not due to it. However, he further found that he had no jurisdiction to award a net sum to the claimant as claimed in accounts submitted after the adjudication had started. The claimant applied for summary judgment, contending for the sum claimed in his accounts. The Technology and Construction Court held that the adjudicator had been right to determine that he had no jurisdiction to award a net sum to the claimant and he was not entitled to summary judgment on that sum. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. A child, SE, was born prematurely to the mother who was a drug addict. A care order was made in respect of the child in favour of the applicant local authority. When the child continued to suffer serious health problems, the local authority, supported by the mother and the weight of medical evidence sought declarations from the court that it was not in the child's interests to receive further life sustaining treatment. The Family Division held that the evidence supporting the declaration was overwhelming and made the declarations accordingly. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. On a return date of a freezing order in relation to proceedings in Belgian proceedings, the Commercial Court held that the evidence established a clear and real risk of dissipation of assets in the absence of freezing order relief. The existence of accounts in the United Kingdom, and the inference that there were assets in England and Wales, justified an order for disclosure of assets under s 25 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1925 extending to all the defendant's assets within England and Wales in support of the bank's claim in the Belgian proceedings. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against orders for his extradition to Slovakia to stand trial for minor theft and minor property damage, relying on art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and alleging that the judge had erred in finding that to discharge him would be 'endorsing his behaviour'. The Administrative Court held that the judge had taken account of a factor which had been no proper part of the balancing exercise. Approaching the balancing exercise afresh, the hardship to the appellant and his family was not such as to overcome the public interest in extradition. 

Statutory duty – Breach. The claimant company was an unsuccessful tenderer in a tendering process managed by the defendant local authority. It brought a claim for breaches of statutory duty against the authority. The Technology and Construction Court held that, among other things, there had been no breaches of the principles of equality and non-discrimination, and no room for the implication of breach of contract. 

Costs – Order for costs. The claimant company sought judicial review of the decision of the inspector appointed by the defendant Secretary of State, refusing it the costs of its successful appeal. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that there was no clear explanation of why the inspector had felt that the material she had considered to have afforded a respectable basis for the local authority's stance had met the objective standard necessary to support the reasons for refusal. 

Fire – Damages. The proceedings concerned a dispute as to liability in respect of a fire which had occurred at the defendant's premises and spread to the claimant's premises. The claimant contended that the fire had started as a result of the self-combustion of linseed oil-soaked rags, which the defendant had disposed of in an unlidded metal tin within the spray booth enclosure at the defendant's premises. The Queen's Bench Division, in dismissing the claim, held that the fire had not started as alleged by the claimant, and accepted the defendant's case that the cause of the fire had been an electric fault.