Latest Cases

Employment tribunal – Procedure. The employment tribunal rejected the employee's claim for unfair dismissal on the basis, having regard to the effective date of termination (EDT), it had been brought out of time. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in dismissing the employee's appeal against that decision, held that in the light of established authority such as Cort (Robert) & Son Ltd v Charman [1981] IRLR 437, when calculating the three-month primary time limit under s 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, s 97(2) of that act did not allow for the addition of statutory notice entitlement under s 86. Consequently, the tribunal had correctly identified the EDT, with the result that the employee's claim had been out of time. 

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. 

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 – Procedure. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) allowed the employee's appeal against the refusal by the employment tribunal to review its decision to strike out her claims for unfair dismissal and discrimination for non-compliance with its unless order. The EAT took the view that the interests of justice required the decision to strike out to be reviewed to enable the case to be determined on its facts. Accordingly, the matter was remitted to a fresh tribunal to proceed with the full hearing of the claims. 

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. 

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. 

Costs – Order for costs. The parties sought orders as to costs following trial, in which the claimants' claim for damages for professional negligence against the defendant was dismissed (see Kellie and another v Wheatley & Lloyd Architects Ltd[2014] EWHC 2212 (TCC)). The Technology and Construction Court ordered that the claimants had to pay all of the defendant's costs, to be subject to a detailed assessment on the standard basis if not agreed. 

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. 

Unfair dismissal – Constructive dismissal. The Employment Appeal Tribunal decided that the employment tribunal had erred in its decision that the employee had been constructively dismissed without first asking itself the correct question, namely, whether the employee had acted in such a way as to breach the implied term of the contract between employer and employee. Further the decision made by the tribunal was perverse as there had been internally contradictory findings. Accordingly, the employer's appeal was allowed and the matter was remitted to a fresh tribunal.