Latest Cases

Redundancy – Dismissal by way of redundancy. The employee had been dismissed ostensibly for redundancy. The employer appealed against the finding by the employment tribunal that the employee had been unfairly dismissed, contending that the tribunal had applied the wrong test in determining the reason for the employee's dismissal. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in allowing the employer's appeal, ruled that, on the facts found, the dismissal had been for redundancy. Accordingly, the tribunal had applied the wrong test and the case was remitted to the same tribunal to consider the provisions of s 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. 

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. 

Town and country planning – Local government. The claimant unsuccessfully applied to the local planning authority for retrospective planning permission to use a site for metal recycling and car breaking. The claimant appealed to an inspector and that appeal was dismissed. By a claim under s 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 the claimant challenged the inspector's decision. The Administrative Court dismissed the claim finding that it had been open to the inspector to reason and decide as he had done. 

Unfair dismissal – Constructive dismissal. The employment tribunal had rejected the employee's claim for unfair constructive dismissal that, by preventing his attending work as a salesman, and thereby achieving sales and commission on those sales, the employer had breached the contract of employment. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in dismissing the employee's appeal, held that there had been no error of law in the judgment of the tribunal. 

Employment – Discrimination. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in dismissing the employees' appeal against the decision of the employment tribunal not to extend time for the bringing of their claims for age discrimination, ruled that there had been no error of law and that the tribunal had been entitled in all the circumstances to refuse the application for extension of time. 

Employment tribunal – Striking out. The employment tribunal dismissed the employee's application to vary an unless order and refused to give her relief from sanctions with the result that her case was struck out following her non-compliance with the order. The tribunal further refused her permission to raise new unlawful direct race discrimination claims. In dismissing her appeal against those decisions, the Employment Appeal Tribunal decided that there had been no error of law in the tribunal's order or its approach. 

Employment tribunal – Procedure. By way of an administrative error, the employee's case before the employment tribunal was heard by a single judge, rather than a three person-panel, as requested by the employee. The tribunal dismissed the claim and awarded costs against the employee. In allowing the employee's appeal, the Employment Appeal Tribunal decided that the error in the composition of the tribunal's panel had been fundamental. It further held that the reasons given by the tribunal were not sufficiently clear to show why the case had been dismissed. Consequently, the case was remitted to a freshly constituted tribunal comprising three members. 

Employment tribunal – Procedure. The employee applied for leave to amend his Notice of Appeal which sought to include a challenge to the employment tribunal's rejection of the employee's claim to retrospective admission to the Teachers Pension Scheme on the basis that there had not been a 'stable employment relationship' between the parties. Applying Khudados v Leggate and others [2005] IRLR 540 and considering the overriding objective of the Employment Appeal Tribunal Rules 1993, SI 1993/2854 (as amended by the Employment Appeal Tribunal Rules 1993, SI 2013/1693) to deal with cases justly and fairly, the Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed the employee's application. 

Contract – Construction. The claimant lenders brought a claim against the defendant borrowers on the basis of a personal loan agreement. The defendants challenged the authenticity of the purported load agreement. The Queen's Bench Division held that the claimants had failed to discharge the burden that the agreement was what it purported to be and, accordingly, the action failed and would be dismissed. 

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.