Latest Cases

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 – 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. 

Race relations – Discrimination. The Queen's Bench Division found, inter alia, that the claimant's claim of racial discrimination was proved in respect of some aspects of her treatment on the evening of her arrest. Her claim under art 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights was not made out. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

Practice – Service out of the jurisdiction. The proceedings concerned alleged acts and omissions of doctors for whom the first defendant company, AASA, admitted had liability. The claim against the second defendant doctor could only proceed if the claim against AASA had been brought properly. The issue arose as to whether the proceedings had been properly served against AASA, which had its head offices in South Africa. At first instance, the court held that the claim had not been properly served against AASA. On appeal, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the court had not erred, and that there was no case at all that AASA had had its central administration in England, so as to allow proceedings to be served on it. 

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. 

Practice – Family proceedings. During a fact-finding hearing concerning the death of a child, a schedule of failings, in which the investigation into the child's death was analysed, was produced. The judgement was not made public and a reporting restriction order was made. The media applied for disclosure of the fact-finding judgment and the schedule of failings to their legal advisors. The Family Division held that the balance fell in favour of disclosure of the fact-finding judgment, but not the schedule of failings, to identified legal advisers to the media for an identified purpose and subject to strict controls.