Latest Cases

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. 

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 – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Herdade de S. Tiago II — Sociedade Agrícola, SA (Herdade) against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) relating to opposition proceedings between The Polo/Lauren Company, LP and Herdade, concerning the application by Herdade to register a figurative sign depicting, amongst other things, a polo player. 

European Union – Trademarks. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of art 3(1)(e) of the First Council Directive (EEC) 89/104 (the trade marks directive). The request for a preliminary ruling was made in the course of proceedings between Hauck GmbH & Co KG and Stokke A/S and others concerning an application for the annulment of the Benelux trade mark registration of a sign in the shape of a children's chair marketed by Stokke A/S and others. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

Personal Injury: Quantum Case. Road traffic accident. The claimant was awarded £4,000 in general damages. He suffered from severe pain in the arms, severe pain and numbness in the hands, severe pain and stiffness in the neck, severe pain in the upper back and severe pain in the shoulders. The claimant's neck injury was expected to recover 11–13 months post-accident. His soft tissue injuries to upper back and shoulders, radiating down arms to hands and travel anxiety were expected to recover within 9–11 months post-accident. 

Legal aid – Criminal cases. The claimants sought judicial review of the Lord Chancellor's decisions that there would be 525 duty provider work contracts and an average immediate reduction of 8.75% in criminal legal aid fees. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application in part, held that the failure to consult on two reports concerning the deputy provider work contracts had been so unfair as to result in illegality. However, the decision as to the 8.75% reduction would not be quashed, as there was not a sufficient connection between the flaws identified in the consultation process and the decision to reduce fees. 

European Union – Rules on competition. The European Commission found that the applicant's new rules for its interoperable banking systems had infringed art 81 of the EC Treaty. The General Court of the European Union dismissed its action for the annulment of the decision and the applicant appealed. The Court of Justice of the European Union, in allowing the appeal, held that, in holding that the measures at issue had had as their object a restriction of competition within the meaning of art 81(1) of the EC Treaty, the General Court had erred in law and had failed to observe the standard of review required under the case law.