Latest Cases

Employment tribunal – Procedure. In considering the employee's claim for unlawful deduction from wages, the employment tribunal had taken it upon itself to find that the employer had breached his obligation to provide the employee with a statement of the principal terms and conditions of her employment, a claim which was not made in the employee's ET1. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in allowing the employer's appeal, held, inter alia, that the tribunal had erred in raising and adjudicating upon that claim when the employer had neither notice of it nor an opportunity to respond. Further, the tribunal had failed to identify any statutory defences that there might have been. 

Solemn procedure – Time bar – Twelve-month rule. High Court of Justiciary: Refusing appeals by five appellants against the sheriff at Paisley's decision, at end of the April 2014 sitting, to grant a motion to adjourn their trial on charges of serious assault and to extend the 12-month time bar, the court held that the developing issues surrounding the fitness of one of the appellants to stand trial constituted sufficient cause to satisfy the first stage test in HM Advocate v Swift, and that the sheriff did not err in exercising his discretion by granting the motion. 

Company – Restoration to register – Effect. Sheriff Court: Allowing an appeal in a case in which the Crown had disclaimed the title to a lease following the tenant company's dissolution, thereby terminating it, the landlords had commenced proceedings to repossess the premises, and a director of the tenant company had then had it restored to the register, the court concluded that the sheriff was wrong to agree with the defenders' contention that, in terms of s 1032(1) of the Companies Act 2006, all things had reverted to the status quo as it prevailed pre-dissolution and that landlords' action was irrelevant. 

European Union – Equality of treatment of men and women. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art 4 of Council Directive (EEC) 79/7 (on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security). The request had been made in a dispute between X and the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health concerning the grant of lump-sum compensation paid following an accident at work. 

Statutory instrument – Construction. The Secretary of State claimed that clandestine entrants to the United Kingdom were found hiding in a lorry driven by the appellant in an immigration control zone at Dunkirk and gave notice of imposition of a civil penalty on the appellant, under Part II of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, as amended by the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. The amendments were brought into effect by a Commencement Order. The appellant appealed against the penalties and a point of law arose as to the proper interpretation of the Commencement Order. The Administrative Court held that the Commencement Order was to be read as including by clear implication additional wording to indicate that the amendments also applied in relation to immigration control zones. 

Patent – Infringement. The Chancery Division, Intellectual Property Enterprise Court, determined an account of profits following a judgment in which it was found that the claimants' patent was valid and had been infringed by the defendants. 

Expenses – Motion for interim interdict. Sheriff Court: Allowing an appeal against a sheriff's refusal of the appellants' motion for the expenses of hearings of the respondent's motion seeking interim interdict to prevent them executing diligence on a summary warrant, the sheriff having refused the motion because at the point that it was made the initial writ had been withdrawn and there was no process, the court held that the sheriff wrongly allowed the respondent to withdraw his initial writ without seeking leave, and the appellants should be able to recover their expenses. 

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 – Discrimination. The employment tribunal, having found that the employer was liable for sex discrimination and harassment of the employee, ordered that it pay the employee an award for injury to feelings, which would be subject to a 25% uplift for failure to follow the ACAS Code on Discipline and Grievance at Work 2009. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in allowing the employer's appeal, held that the award was manifestly too high and that there was no basis for the uplift. Accordingly, the award would be substituted for a smaller amount and the judgment on the uplift would be quashed. 

Employment tribunal – Practice. The employment tribunal had accepted the employer's limitation application but indicated that, even if the employee's complaints were out of time, it would extend time under the just and equitable escape clause for all claims. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in allowing the employer's appeal, held that, instead of considering first whether the claims had been in time as part of a continuing state of affairs, the tribunal had jumped straight to the just and equitable escape clause without hearing full submissions from the parties' representatives. There was, therefore, procedural irregularity and, accordingly, the limitation issue would be remitted to the same tribunal for re-hearing.