Latest Cases

Employment – Sex discrimination. The employee, who was enlisted in the Royal Air Force, made complaints of sex discrimination. The employment tribunal ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to consider her complaints. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in allowing her appeal, held that the tribunal had erred in failing to give effect to a purposive construction of the Equality Act 2010 required to achieve lawful balance between enabling the armed forces to determine complaints internally prior to litigation and a complainant's right of access to a court or tribunal within a reasonable time. 

European Union – Income tax. The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that art 63 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should be interpreted as precluding national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings which provided that the failure by a non-resident investment fund to comply with the obligations to communicate and publish certain information required by that legislation, which were applicable without distinction to resident and non-resident investment funds alike, resulting in the flat-rate taxation of the income which the taxpayer earned from that investment fund, since that legislation did not allow the taxpayer to provide evidence or information that could prove the actual size of that income. 

European Union – Public procurement. The claimant company had failed in a public procurement tender conducted by the defendant Ministry of Defence. The claimant alleged an abnormally low tender and predatory pricing on the part of the winning bidder. A statutory suspension pursuant to reg 56 of the Defence and Security Public Contracts Regulations 2011, SI 2011/1848, came into effect. The Technology and Construction Court allowed the MOD's application for a lifting of the suspension as there was a serious issue to be tried, damages were an adequate remedy and the balance of convenience was in favour of the suspension being lifted. 

European Union – Customs and excise. The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that arts 7(2) and 8(6) of Council Directive 2011/64/EU (on the structure and rates of excise duty applied to manufactured tobacco) should be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, rather than establishing an identical minimum excise duty that was applicable to all cigarettes, established a minimum excise duty that was applicable only to cigarettes with a retail selling price lower than that of cigarettes in the most popular price category. 

Drugs – Drug trafficking. The claimant applied for a certificate of inadequacy on the basis that a Spanish villa in which he had an interest was not realisable, as legal proceedings concerning squatters at the property meant it could not be sold. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the claimant had not shown that it was impossible to realise the Spanish villa. It was foreseeable that there would be a decision of the Spanish court which would determine whether or not the villa was a realisable asset of the claimant. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant Sri Lankan national sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision to refuse him leave to remain in the United Kingdom. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, examined key points which emerged from the case law concerning the question as to whether exceptional circumstances justified leave to remain outside the Immigration Rules in order to satisfy art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It held that the decision letter had contained no indication or reasoning which demonstrated that the Secretary of State had considered the exercise of discretion, the question of exceptional circumstances or the question of proportionality. 

Disclosure and inspection of documents – Order for disclosure. The proceedings concerned a fire at a warehouse that had started in a forklift truck. A dispute arose between the appellant company, B, which had entered into a maintenance agreement with the third respondent company regarding the forklift truck, and the respondents, Jet, who either owned or were interested in the warehouse. At first instance, the court allowed Jet's application for an order to disclose certain documents relating to maintenance. The Court of Appeal dismissed B's appeal, holding that there was no ground for saying that the judge had erred in making the order. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The claimant applied to have an ex parte order, withdrawing an accepted CPR Pt 3 offer set aside. The Queen's Bench Division held that the only new circumstances which could make it just to permit a party to withdraw its offer before the expiry of the relevant period were circumstances which the offeror was able and willing to make known to the offeree at the time of serving notice of withdrawal. 

Practice – Post-trial or pre-judgment relief. The claimant and the defendant were companies incorporated under the laws of Zambia. Pursuant to certain contracts, which provided for arbitration in London, the claimant mined one of the defendant's mines in Zambia. Following a dispute, the London arbitration tribunal made two awards in favour of the claimant and it was granted a worldwide freezing order by the English court. The Commercial Court granted the claimant's application to continue the order, where there was a risk of dissipation of assets and it was just and convenient to do so. The fact that enforcement of an award would take place in Zambia was, by itself, insufficient to make it inappropriate for the English court to grant the order. 

Estoppel – Res judicata. The claimant lending company, CFB, sought to execute a warrant of possession on property owned by the defendants. The defendants had defaulted on two loans, applying to a house and a set of cottages. A dispute arose as to whether CFB would be prevented by cause of action estoppel from relying upon the house charge as security for the cottages loan. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that CFB would be prevented from doing so, but that the question of whether an enforceable contract had existed so that CFB would not be able to enforce the charge on the house so long as instalments on the house loan were paid would be referred to the county court.