Latest Cases

Employment tribunal – Jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division considered the factors material to whether an employment tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain an unfair dismissal claim brought by a former employee who was engaged to work abroad. In allowing the employer's appeal, the court held that the authorities made it clear that the general rule was that someone in the employee's position was, upon dismissal, excluded from any right to claim under s 94(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. If he wished to show that, exceptionally, his case was not caught by that general rule, but that he was within the territorial jurisdiction of s 94(1), he had to be able to show that his employment relationship had a sufficiently strong connection with Great Britain and British employment law such that it could be presumed that Parliament had to have intended that s 94(1) should apply to him. 

Practice – Civil litigation. The Chancery Division declined to grant an application to strike out a claim in proceedings concerning the estate of the deceased Kuwaiti Sheikh in circumstances where the claim had been purportedly brought in the third claimant's personal capacity on behalf of the estate or as the representative of the other beneficiaries of the estate, but was later amended to state that the third claimant was suing on her own behalf and as administratrix. 

European Union – Taxation. The Court of Justice of the European Union held that that the compatibility with EU law of national rules, under which a company resident in a member state could not set off corporation tax paid in another member state or in a third state by capital companies distributing dividends, had to be assessed in the light of arts 63 and 65 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Further, the Court determined the circumstances in which art 63 of the Treaty did not preclude application of the exemption method to dividends when the imputation method was applied. 

Personal injury – Health and safety – Liability – Causation. Court of Session: In an action in which the widow of an employee of Scottish Water sought damages, claiming his death was caused by an accident at work, the deceased having died at home from a pulmonary thromboembolism, due to deep venous thrombosis, due to immobility, due to a knee injury, the court concluded that a claimed slip or fall at work did not cause the tear of the medial meniscus of the deceased's left knee which immobilised him, that it had not in any case been proved that he slipped on wet grass or mud, and that even if he did slip and injure his knee (in a way that caused or contributed to his death) because of ground conditions no breach of legal duty by the defenders was involved. 

Personal Injury: Quantum Case. Road traffic accident. The claimant was awarded £4,300 in general damages. She suffered from severe pain in her neck, right shoulder and upper, mid and lower back. She also suffered from severe headaches and travel anxiety. The claimant's back injury was expected to recover in 11–13 months post-accident. The claimant's whiplash soft tissue injury to neck and right shoulder, headaches and travel anxiety were expected to recover in 9–11 months post-accident. 

European Union – Income tax. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of arts 63 TFEU and 65 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The request had been made in proceedings between Mr Verest and Ms Gerards and the Belgium concerning the tax treatment, in Belgium, of immovable property situated in France. 

Company – Registration. The claimant, a Seychelles international business company, sought a declaration of invalidity in respect of a declaration of trust, by the first defendant, that the claimant held its 99% interest in the fourth defendant company on behalf of the second defendant. The claimant also sought rectification of the register of companies. The Chancery Division, in allowing the claim, held that there was an implied choice of English law and, on the facts, the declaration of trust had been made without the consent of the majority of the claimant's shareholders, and would be declared invalid. The court further ordered that the register of companies be rectified accordingly. 

Employment – Unfair dismissal. The employment tribunal (the tribunal) found that the employee's dismissal for making a protected disclosure had been unfair and it made a basic award and a compensatory award. The employer successfully appealed. On remission, the tribunal considered the employee's conduct and decided that no compensatory award would be made. It held that there should be a 10% reduction in the basic award in respect of the employee's conduct. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in allowing the employee's appeal, held that the tribunal's decision to make no compensatory award could not stand. The appropriate reduction was 40%. 

European Union – Value added tax. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of the first subpara of art 98(2) of, and point 6 of Annex III to, Council Directive (EC) 2006/112, as amended. The request had been made in proceedings between a publishing company and the Finnish tax board, and the issue was whether the Directive had to be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which books published in paper form were subject to a reduced rate of VAT and books published on other physical supports, such as CDs, CD-ROMs or USB keys, were subject to the standard rate of VAT. 

European Union – Commercial policy. In the context of defamation proceedings issued by the applicant against the respondents, the Court of Justice of the European Union answered five questions on the interpretation of European Parliament and Council Directive (EC) 2000/31. In particular, it held that 'information society services', within the meaning of art 2(a) of the Directive, covered the provision of online information services for which the service provider was remunerated, not by the recipient, but by income generated by advertisements posted on a website and that the Directive did not preclude the application of rules of civil liability for defamation.