Latest Cases

Unfair dismissal – Constructive dismissal. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) allowed the employee's appeal against the employment tribunal's decisions regarding the employee's claims for unfair constructive dismissal and race discrimination. The EAT decided that both those decisions had been in error on the basis that, in respect of the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal had not set out its reasons, and in respect of the race discrimination claim, the tribunal had failed to deal with a specific argument addressed to it. Accordingly, the matter was remitted for rehearing by a fresh tribunal. 

Employment tribunal – Procedure. At the end of a pre-hearing review on the question of whether the employee had a disability (the first hearing), the employment tribunal judge concluded that the employee did have a disability but decided to give his reasons for that decision in a written judgment. The tape of the first hearing was subsequently lost. The judge conducted a re-hearing of the same issue. He refusing to recuse himself and proceeded to render the same decision again, despite the employer's protestations of bias and prejudice. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (the EAT), in allowing the employer's appeal, decided that there was a real possibility of bias at the second hearing as the judge would be bound to be influenced by his earlier decision. 

Professional misconduct – Medical practitioner. The appellant was a nurse. In October 2012, the appellant pleaded guilty to two charges of fraud. As a result of the convictions, the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) brought disciplinary proceedings against the appellant. A panel of the Conduct and Competence Committee of the NMC (the panel) ruled that the appellant's fitness to be practise had been impaired and ordered that she be struck off. The appellant appealed against the sanction imposed. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the panel was entitled to conclude that no sanction short of striking off would be appropriate. 

Employment tribunal – Procedure. An employee unsuccessfully applied to the employment tribunal for leave to amend her claim form to add: (i) detriments suffered by reason of protected disclosures to her existing unfair dismissal claim; and (ii) a claim for detrimental treatment by way of public interest disclosure. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (the EAT) allowed the employee's appeal in respect of the first proposed amendment on the basis that the tribunal ought to have given separate consideration to that claim, which had been closely linked to the existing unfair dismissal claim. However, the EAT took the view that the tribunal had not erred in law in refusing permission to amend to add the second claim. 

Employment tribunal – Procedure. The employment tribunal had dismissed a claim for, amongst other things, unfair dismissal, by the employee teacher against a local authority and the interim executive board of the school (the board) where the employee had worked. The tribunal had dismissed the claim against the authority on jurisdictional grounds on the basis that the correct respondent had been the board. It had further dismissed the claim against the board as it had been out of time. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in allowing the employee's appeal, held that: (i) the time limit had been a factor in the court's discretion, rather than an automatic bar; and (ii) it could not be said that the authority had definitely not been liable. 

Unfair dismissal – Determination whether dismissal fair or unfair. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) ruled that, in a case concerning unfair dismissal, the employment tribunal had been wrong to exclude the background related to a warning received by the employee prior to his dismissal for misconduct involving breach of the employer's email policies. However, the EAT dismissed the employee's appeal, deciding that in all the circumstances it would have made no difference to the outcome on the basis that, amongst other things: (i) the warning had required the employee to read and abide by company policies and he had indicated that he had understood it and had not appealed it; and (ii) during the appeal against his dismissal he had for the first time challenged the warning and his points had been investigated and rejected. 

Patent – Infringement. The first claimant owned two United Kingdom patents for an invention entitled 'flying shark' and the second claimant was the exclusive licensee of the first claimant in respect of both patents. The defendant devised and imported toys for sale in the UK, in particular, flying fish known as 'mega fliers'. The claimants brought proceedings against the defendant alleging patent infringement. The Intellectual Property Enterprise Court held that both patents had been infringed and ruled on the validity of the claims within each patent. 

Immigration – Detention. In September 2011, the claimant was convicted of robbery and sentenced to imprisonment. On completion of the custodial part of his sentence, the claimant was detained under para 2(3) of schedule 3 to the Immigration Act 1971 (the Act) until January 2014, when he was granted bail. The claimant sought judicial review of the Secretary of State's decision that he be detained under the Act. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the claimant had not been detained for an unreasonable period and the Secretary of State had not failed to act with reasonable diligence and expedition to effect removal. 

Conflict of laws – Jurisdiction. In an application seeking to set aside an order giving the claimant permission to serve out of the jurisdiction, the Chancery Division found, inter alia, that the claimant had not established that, in the absence of an English law contract, a claim under the Commercial Agents (Council Directive) Regulations 1993, SI 1993/3053, could be brought within certain of the gateways under CPR Pt 6. 

Contract – Construction. A transaction for the sale of a business involved an element of deferred consideration and a dispute arose as to the calculation of the amount of deferred consideration. The parties sought, and the judge granted, various declarations as to the interpretation of the contractual documentation (see Starbev GP Ltd v Interbrew Central European Holdings BV[2014] All ER (D) 193 (Apr)). The parties sought rulings consequential on the judgment. The Commercial Court ruled on the calculation of the deemed equity return and how the provision in the definition of excess equity return in the contingent value right was intended to prevent double-recovery, but refused the defendant permission to re-amend its amended defence and counterclaim to claim interest.