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. 

Firearms – Shotgun certificate. Sheriff Court. Dismissing an appeal against a chief police officer's refusal to grant a shotgun certificate, the court held that the appellant could not be permitted to possess a shotgun as his tendency towards non-compliance with the law, together with the presence in the family home of his partner's teenage son, who had a history of behavioural difficulties would, on the balance of probabilities, create a risk of danger to public safety. 

Statement of claim – Amdement. In the course of a patent dispute, the issue arose of how long the claimant company should be given to provide full particulars of claim. The Patents Court held that, on the evidence, a fair period for doing so would be up to the 15 September 2014. 

Employment tribunal – Procedure. The employment tribunal had dismissed the employee's application to amend his existing claim to add a complaint of dismissal.The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in dismissing the employee's appeal, held that there had been no error of law in the exercise of the tribunal's discretion to refuse the amendment in the circumstances. 

Employment – Disability. The employment tribunal had determined that the employee had not suffered from a disability within the meaning of s 6 of the Equality Act 2010. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in allowing the employee's appeal, held that the tribunal had erred in its approach to various questions of fact which it ought to have addressed but had failed to do so, namely, whether the employee's disability was being controlled by drugs and whether its effects were likely to recur. Accordingly, the matter would be remitted to a differently constituted employment tribunal. 

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 – Equal pay. The employment tribunal had found that the differences in pay between a female employee professor and male employee professors had been for a sound business reason which was unrelated to sex. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in dismissing the employee's appeal, held, inter alia, that the tribunal had sufficiently reasoned why it had thought that the evidence did not establish any 'taint' of sex and, therefore, no issue of justification had arisen. 

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 – Disability. The employment tribunal had found that the employer, in imposing a requirement on the disabled employee that he attend interviews, had discriminated against the employee and failed to make reasonable adjustments. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in dismissing the employer's appeal, held that the tribunal had been entitled to make both findings. All of the ingredients of the obligation to make a reasonable adjustment had been present. 

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.