Latest Cases

Adjudication – Jurisdiction. By a deed of appointment, the claimant company agreed to provide mechanical and electrical engineering design services for the design and construction of a new data centre for Barclays plc. A dispute arose. The defendant, an affiliate of Barclays plc, as a third party, referred to adjudication a dispute regarding defects in the chilled water system. The claimant sought declarations that the defendant was not entitled to commence adjudication proceedings and that the adjudicator lacked jurisdiction. The Technology and Construction Court held that the defendant third party had not been given a right to enforce the terms of the deed of appointment by adjudication. Accordingly, it was not entitled to commence adjudication proceedings against the claimant and that the adjudicator did not have jurisdiction to determine the claim. 

Employment – Contract of employment. The employment tribunal had found that the employees had been employed under contracts of apprenticeship. The employer, the Revenue and Customs Commissioners, appealed. The issue was whether workers at a livery stable were employed under contracts of work on apprenticeships for the purposes of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 and the National Minimum Wage Regulations 1999, SI 1999/584. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in allowing the appeal, held that the tribunal had erred in finding that the employees had been employed under contracts of apprenticeship. 

Company – Member. The petitioner, who was excluded from the first defendant company, which she had owned as a quasi-partnership with the second defendant, presented a petition to the court, under s 994 of the Companies Act 2006, alleging that the second defendant had conducted the affairs of the company in an unfairly prejudicial manner. The Companies Court, in granting the petition, held that the second defendant had acted in a manner which had been unfairly prejudicial to the interests of the petitioner in respect of the company. Accordingly, an order was made, requiring the second defendant to purchase the petitioner's shares in the company at the price reflecting the fair and proper value of the petitioner's shares in the company as at the date she had been excluded. 

Employment – Remuneration. The employer had identified on the employee's itemised pay statements the deduction from his gross salary which it had made in respect of overpayments relating to sick leave. Those had been separately shown with a minus sign next to them, but the employer had not identified what the deductions were. In contrast to the employment tribunal, the Employment Appeal Tribunal, in allowing the employee's appeal, held that the itemised pay statements, in particular, the minus entries, were deductions, as provided for by s 8 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and their purpose should have been identified. 

Police – Discipline. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant's decision to maintain his suspension pending disciplinary proceedings and refusal to consent to his resignation, contrary to earlier assurances. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the claim, held, inter alia, that the public interest in ensuring that the claimant remained subject to police disciplinary jurisdiction in such a serious case had justified the defendant departing from the representation previously made that he would not be prevented from resigning. 

European Union – Trade marks. The applicant sought the annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), upholding the decision of the Cancellation Division, finding his trade mark to be invalid. The General Court of the European Union, in dismissing the action, held that the Board had not assessed the distinctive character of the contested mark incorrectly or misapplied art 7(3) of Council Regulation (EC) 207/2009, in taking the view that the evidence had not been sufficient to show that the mark had become distinctive through the use made of it. 

Immigration – Detention. The claimant Moroccan national sought damages for unlawful immigration detention for a period of 22 months. The Queen's Bench Division, in allowing the application, held that the first period of 12 months had been lawful. However, when applications for an emergency travel document had failed within a further two-month period, it should have been clear that the detention had been longer than had been lawful. Accordingly, eight months of the 22 months of detention had been unlawful. 

Medical practitioner – Disciplinary panel. The appellant doctor admitted falsifying clinical assessment entries on his e-portfolio. Before the General Medical Council's Fitness to Practise Panel (FTPP), the appellant, it was said, on the advice of the barrister representing him below, initially denied that his conduct had been dishonest. The appellant later admitted that his conduct had been dishonest. The FTPP erased the appellant from the medical register and he appealed. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the FTPP had been entitled to reach that decision on the evidence before it, even if another FTPP might, possibly, have reached a different view. 

European Union – Freedom to provide services. The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in which a tenderer intended to carry out a public contract by having recourse exclusively to workers employed by a sub-contractor established in a member state, other than that to which the contracting authority belonged, art 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union precluded the application of legislation of the member state to which that contracting authority belonged which required that sub-contractor to pay those workers a minimum wage fixed by that legislation. 

European Union – Trade marks. The applicant sought the annulment in specified respects of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (the Board), upholding the decision of the Cancellation Division, finding its Community trade mark 'sensi scandia' to be invalid. The General Court of the European Union, in dismissing the action, held that the difference between the mark and an earlier Community word mark 'SCANDIA HOME' was insufficient to exclude all likelihood of confusion between the trade marks on the part of the public.