Latest Cases

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. 

Employment tribunal – Procedure. The employment tribunal dismissed the employee's claim for constructive unfair dismissal against the employer, but declined to determine whether there was a TUPE transfer. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in dismissing the employee's appeal, held that whether there had been a TUPE transfer of employees had not been an issue for the tribunal to determine and, although the tribunal judge's choice of language at one point during the hearing had been open to criticism, a fair-minded and informed observer would not have thought there was a real possibility of bias. 

European Union – Trade marks. The applicant sought the annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (the Board), upholding the Opposition Division's rejection of its opposition to the registration of the intervener company's mark. The General Court of the European Union, in dismissing the action, held that the Board incorrectly concluded there was no proof that an earlier mark enjoyed a reputation, but absent any link between the marks, the use of the mark applied for was not likely to take unfair advantage of or be detrimental to the distinct character or the repute of the earlier mark. 

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. 

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. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union annulled the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) relating to proceedings between the applicant and intervener, concerning registration of the figurative sign 'So' Bio ētic' as a Community trade mark. 

European Union – Commission. The applicant company alleged that its greenhouse gas emission allowances were stolen. It issued proceedings, contending that the European Union was liable by virtue of the European Commission's unlawful conduct in refusing to disclose the location of and prohibit all transactions concerning the allowances allegedly stolen. It alternatively contended that the EU had strict liability by virtue of the Commission's lawful conduct. The General Court of the European Union, in dismissing the action, held that it had not been established that the forms of conduct of which the Commission was accused were unlawful. Further, the damage alleged had not been unusual so as to establish strict liability. 

Equity – Breach of confidence. The claimant had approached the first defendant bank (Barclays), intending to obtain financial assistance to pursue a valuable project. The claimant brought a claim for misuse of confidentiality and exclusivity agreements against Barclays and the second defendant company in respect of the project. The Chancery Division ruled that Barclays and the second defendant company had breached obligations of confidentiality by misusing confidential information for the purpose of establishing a strategic partnership between them, but had not breached the exclusivity agreements. Accordingly, the claimant was entitled to compensation of €10m. 

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. 

Tort – Harassment. The claimants, who were involved in the running of amusement parks, sought an interim injunction restraining the defendant from sending mass emails and setting up websites in which he campaigned on the issue of safety in theme parks, and criticised the claimants and other individuals. The Queen's Bench Division, in dismissing the application, held that there had been no course of conduct which amounted to harassment. Accordingly, the claimants had not established that there was a serious question to be tried, still less that they were more likely than not to succeed.