Latest Cases

European Union – Regulations. The first applicant Zimbabwean Deputy Minister for Economic Planning and Development and his companies sought compensation resulting from being the subject of restrictive measures imposed by the European Council. The General Court of the European Union, in dismissing the application, held that there was sufficient statement of the reasons justifying the freezing of the first applicant's assets. Further, there had been no manifest error of assessment and misuse of powers in listing the first applicant as a person subject to restrictive measures or in omitting to revoke the measure against him sooner. 

European Union – Freedom of movement. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art 12 of Council Directive (EC) 2004/114 (on the conditions of admission of third-country nationals for the purposes of studies, pupil exchange, unremunerated training or voluntary service). The request had been made in the course of proceedings brought by Mr Ben Alaya against Germany, concerning its refusal to grant him a visa for study purposes. 

Practice – Interim remedy. The claimants asserted that they were recruited by British forces in Afghanistan as covert human intelligence sources (CHIS). In the instant urgent application for interim relief, they sought orders that the defendants take all steps necessary to provide them with secure accommodation in Afghanistan and associated living expenses. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, rejected the application based on the claimants' private law claims. Further, the government's policy concerning support locally employed staff did not apply to the very different position of CHIS and the British state had had no jurisdiction over the claimants with respect to their claim based on the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Immigration – Leave to appeal – Judicial review. Court of Session: Refusing a judicial review petition by a petitioner whose application for indefinite leave to remain was refused and who sought reduction of a decision of the Upper Tribunal (UT) refusing him leave to appeal against the First Tier Tribunal's dismissal of his appeal, the court held that there was no error of law by the UT judge, never mind a material error, and the petitioner had failed to demonstrate a compelling reason for a further appeal. 

Damages – Personal injury. The defendants admitted the negligent exacerbation of the claimant's T7 paraplegia by deep (grade 4) pressure sores with the consequent infection of the bone marrow, abnormal shortening of the muscle tissue of her legs and a hip dislocation. The Queen's Bench Division considered the extent to which the claimant's condition had been made worse and what damages should be paid. Applying the principle that a tortfeasor had to take his victim as he found him and make full compensation for their worsened condition, the court found the defendants' negligence had made the claimant's position materially and significantly worse than it would have been but for that negligence. 

Practice – Summary judgment. In the course of proceedings concerning alleged blackmail, the claimant made an application for summary judgment. The Queen's Bench Division, in allowing the application, held that the facts that the first defendant wished to put into issue were of only marginal significance in legal terms compared with the facts that had been admitted or indisputable. 

Employment – Remuneration. The employment tribunal had found that the employee had suffered unauthorised deductions from wages in relation to his London weighting allowance (LWA). The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in allowing the employer's appeal, held that the tribunal had erred in relation to the question of what had been properly payable by the employer to the employee, in terms of entitlement to LWA, and so far as the identification of the rate of LWA. Accordingly, the matter would be remitted to a fresh tribunal. 

Employment tribunal – Procedure. The employment tribunal had permitted the employee to amend her claim to plead that her dismissal had been automatically unfair because the sole or principal reason for her dismissal had been a transfer of undertaking or a reason connected with the transfer. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT), in allowing the employer's appeal, found that the tribunal had erred in its finding that the employee's claim had attached a different label to the same facts already pleaded. However, the EAT, in exercising its discretion, held that the amendment would, nonetheless, be permitted. 

European Union – Intellectual property rights. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art 5(3)(k) of Directive (EC) 2001/29 of the European Parliament and of the Council (on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society). The request had been made in proceedings between Mr Deckmyn and the Vrijheidsfonds VZW, a non-profit association, and various heirs of Mr Vandersteen, author of the Suske en Wiske comic books, and the holders of the rights associated with those works as well, about the handing-out by Mr Deckmyn of a calendar that contained a reproduction of a drawing which resembled a drawing appearing on the cover of one of the books in the Suske en Wiske series. 

Employment tribunal – Procedure. The employment tribunal, having struck out the employee's claims in his absence, invited the employee, upon his late arrival to the hearing, to address it on whether it should review that decision. The employee said that he had been having a psychotic episode and, although he had no medical evidence, the tribunal observed that he exhibited considerable signs of disquiet. The tribunal did not adjourn and declined to revoke the judgment. The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that, in the circumstances, the tribunal's failure to consider an adjournment and to require the employee to continue with his application, notwithstanding his evident ill-health and lack of relevant documentation, was so obviously wrong that the employee's appeal had to succeed.