Latest Cases

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. 

Employment tribunal – Procedure. The employee appealed against the dismissal of her claims for disability discrimination and harassment on the basis that: (i) during the hearing of those claims before the employment tribunal a lay member of the tribunal had fallen asleep on a number of occasions; and (ii) the tribunal had erred in law in relation to a claim of breach of the duty to make reasonable adjustments. In dismissing the employee's appeal, the EAT decided that on the evidence, it was not satisfied that the lay member in question had been asleep or inattentive in any way and further, the tribunal had dealt sufficiently with issue regarding the failure to make reasonable adjustments. 

Civil procedure – Suspension of diligence. Court of Session: In a petition to the nobile officium in which the petitioner applied for interim suspension of a charge for payment and interim interdict of further diligence in execution of a decree for payment, the court refused the motion, rejecting the contention that it was inequitable to allow the respondents to enforce the liability constituted in the summary decree, and holding that the petition did not disclose a prima facie case: it was incompetent and irrelevant. 

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. 

Power of attorney – Revocation. OB made a lasting power of attorney (LPA) appointing her two daughters, AW and DH, jointly and severally to be her attorneys. OB lived with AW. DH raised concerns about AW's used of OB's money to, among other things, improve her house. After an investigation, the Public Guardian applied to the Court of Protection to revoke and cancel the registration of the LPA. The court held that, in the circumstances, it was appropriate to revoke AW's appointment. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

Company – Scheme of arrangement. The proceedings concerned a company that had been found to have been involved in the mis-selling of insurance products. Its potential financial exposure was considerable. An application was made for a scheme of arrangement to quantify, limit and extinguish the company's liabilities. The Chancery Division, Companies Court, held that, on the evidence, it was appropriate to approve the scheme. 

Town and country planning – Local government. The second defendant local authority refused the claimant retrospective planning permission for the construction of an extension and issued an enforcement notice in respect of the same. The planning inspector, appointed by the first defendant Secretary of State, refused the claimant's appeal against the refusal and the enforcement notice. The claimant challenged the refusal under s 288(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (the Act) and appealed the enforcement notice under s 289 of the Act. The Planning Court, in refusing the application and dismissing the appeal, held that there had not been any error of law.