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. 

Value added tax – Supply of goods or services. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of the first sub-paragraph of art 11C(1) of Sixth Council Directive (EEC) 77/388 (on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment). The request had been made in proceedings between the United Kingdom Revenue and Customs Commissioners and GMAC UK plc (GMAC) concerning the amount chargeable to VAT in respect of supplies which GMAC had made pursuant to hire purchase contracts relating to motor cars. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

Employment tribunal – Procedure. Applying the approach in Mensah v East Hertfordshire NHS Trust [1998] IRLR 531 , the Employment Appeal Tribunal (the EAT) dismissed the employee's appeal, upholding the employment tribunal's finding that the employee's claims of unfair dismissal and discrimination were time-barred as they had been filed beyond the three-month limitation period. 

Damages – Personal injury. Court of Session: In an action for damages by the mother of a 26-year-old man who was killed by a dangerous driver, in which liability was admitted, the court held that the pursuer met the criteria to be classed as a secondary victim and made awards of £80,000 for distress, grief and loss of society, £2,500 for loss of financial support, £5,190 for past loss of personal services and £24,940 for future loss, and £35,000 for solatium.