Latest Cases

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

Animal – Dangerous animal. The claimant Badger Trust challenged a decision taken by the defendant Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to continue the culling of badgers by controlled shooting in two pilot areas. The claimant submitted that it had been given an expectation that the culling would be subject to consideration by an individual expert panel. The Administrative Court held that the claimant had had no legitimate expectation of the nature alleged, and dismissed the claim. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The parents were separated. The mother applied to the court for permission to take their six-year-old son to India, where he had relatives, for three weeks. The Family Court held that the balance came down against granting the mother's application. Comments were made concerning the actions of the Legal Aid Agency with regard, among other things, to the appointment of an expert in Indian law. 

Employment tribunal – Decision. An employee appealed against the employment tribunal's dismissal of her claims for unfair dismissal and direct discrimination. In particular, she alleged a failure by the tribunal to comply with the duty to adequately and clearly identify the issues at the outset of the hearing and to provide reasoning in reaching its decision. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (the EAT), having regard to the entirety of the tribunal's judgment, was satisfied that the tribunal had complied with its duty under r 30 (6) of Sch 1 to the Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004, SI 2004/1861.