Latest Cases

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. 

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. 

Unfair dismissal – Constructive dismissal. The employment tribunal awarded an employee compensation following its decision that the employee had been unfairly constructively dismissed. In ruling on the employer's appeal against the compensatory award made to the employee, the Employment Appeal Tribunal ruled that the tribunal had erred only in basing its calculation of the award for breach of contract on the employee's higher salary in the previous position he had been in before accepting his more recent junior position. Accordingly, the other grounds of appeal would be dismissed and the matter would be remitted to the same tribunal for consideration. 

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. 

Unfair dismissal – Determination whether dismissal fair or unfair. The employment tribunal allowed the employee's claim for unfair dismissal. It accepted the employee's evidence that the reason for his dismissal was that the employer had wanted him to continue in the same role that he was already fulfilling, but with a pay reduction. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in dismissing the employer's appeal, held that the tribunal's conclusion was one it had been entitled to reach and there had been no misdirection or perversity. 

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 – 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. 

Unfair dismissal – Determination whether dismissal fair or unfair. The employment tribunal (the tribunal) upheld the employee's claims for unfair dismissal and age discrimination, deciding that the loss of the employee's post and her dismissal in consequence was not by reason of redundancy, but a dismissal for some other substantial reason (SOSR). The tribunal decided that the employee had been discriminated against on the grounds of her age by the appointment of a younger person to one of the new posts in the restructured organisation, and held that she had been unfairly dismissed. The Employment Appeal Tribunal reversed the tribunal's decision, taking the view that although the tribunal had been entitled to conclude that the dismissal had been for SOSR, it had been wrong to conclude on the evidence that it had been age discrimination. The assessment of the fairness of the dismissal had been flawed, but that issue would be remitted to a tribunal for determination. 

Civil procedure – Lawburrows. Sheriff Court: Dismissing as irrelevant an application for lawburrows against a chief constable based on allegations of defamation, the court held that while there was no objection in principle to applying the remedy of lawburrows to cases of defamation the pursuer had failed to aver a relevant case for lawburrows based on defamation. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. A young child, A, suffered brain trauma as a result of being shaken. The three respondents, A's mother, father and child-minder, disagreed as to the circumstances of A's injury. The applicant local authority brought care proceedings in respect of A and a fact-finding hearing was held to determine the identity of the perpetrator of A's injury. The Family Court held that A's child-minder had caused her injury.