Latest Cases

Unfair dismissal – Determination whether dismissal fair or unfair. The employment tribunal dismissed the employee's claims of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination and concluded that the employee had been dismissed fairly for gross misconduct. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in dismissing the employee's appeal, held that the test of perversity was a high one which had not been reached in the present case and that the tribunal had not substituted its own views for those of the employer. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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.