Latest Cases

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. 

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. 

Sentencing – Sexual offences – Sexual Offences Prevention Orders (SOPOs). High Court of Justiciary: In an appeal against sentence by a 65-year old appellant who pled guilty to sexually assaulting his 25-year-old stepdaughter by rubbing her buttocks over her pyjamas whilst she was asleep, the court quashed a SOPO imposed by the sheriff, holding that he had erred in concluding that the requirements for the imposition of a SOPO were met, and in any event the SOPO imposed was oppressive to a substantial degree. 

Employment – Discrimination. The employee, in her claim for disability discrimination, had put forward to the employment tribunal a number of conditions which she claimed had caused her to be disabled, some of which went beyond her pleaded case. The tribunal found that she was disabled. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in allowing the employer's appeal, held that the tribunal's reasons had: (i) not adequately identified what conditions she had which had caused her to be disabled and whether they were the pleaded or some other conditions; and (ii) not made clear which symptoms or conditions had supported its conclusion as to long-term effect. 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. 

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. 

Town and country planning – Planning permission – Waste to energy plant. Court of Session: In appeals by a planning authority and an objector against a reporter's decision to grant planning permission, subject to conditions, for a waste to energy plant, the court held that a condition concerning waste imported from outwith Highland area was invalid because it enlarged the permission beyond that which was applied for and was considered at the inquiry, that because the condition was not capable of being severed from the rest of the decision the inquiry would have to be reopened, but it need deal only with that condition. 

Injunction – Anti-suit injunction. The proceedings concerned the validity of wills made by the deceased in England and the Netherlands. The claimants, who were brothers of the deceased, issued an application seeking, among other things, an order restraining the second defendant and a foundation from pursuing proceedings in the Netherlands concerning the same subject matter as in the English proceedings. The Chancery Division held that, on the evidence, it would not be appropriate to grant an anti-suit injunction against either of the parties against whom it was sought. 

Employment – Discrimination. The employment tribunal upheld two sex discrimination claims in respect of the employer not accepting a properly notified return date at the end of the employee's maternity leave and taking into account pregnancy-related illnesses in determining an attendance record. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in dismissing the employer's appeal, held that the tribunal had been entitled to determine both issues, in the sense that the complaints and claims had been before it. Further, there was evidence before the tribunal capable of sustaining its conclusion and there was no irregularity in its judgment. 

Employment tribunal – Decision. The Employment tribunal had found that the employer's refusal to allow the employee a trial period for alternative employment in the course of a redundancy exercise was not sufficient to render the offer of alternative employment unreasonable and the dismissal unfair. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in allowing the employee's appeal, held that the tribunal's reasoning was insufficient and had not met the requisite standard. Accordingly, the matter would be remitted to the same tribunal for reconsideration.