Latest Cases

Criminal law – Threatening or abusive behaviour. High Court of Justiciary: Refusing three appeals against conviction for threatening or abusive behaviour in each of which the question was how s 38(1)(b) of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010 was to be interpreted, the court held the accused's conduct was to be judged by an objective test in which the actual effect of the threatening or abusive behaviour on those who experienced it was irrelevant. 

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. 

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. 

Practice – Striking out. The claimant, B, had arranged a loan with the defendant bank. He subsequently sought to transfer the loan from himself to a company that he controlled. B and the company brought proceedings against the bank for, among other things, misrepresentation. In the course of proceedings, the bank sought to strike out the claim, and the claimants sought permission to amend the particulars of claim. The Queen's Bench Division held that the application to amend would be dismissed, and judgment would be given for the bank. 

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. 

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. 

Local government – Inalienable common good land – Jurisdiction of court. Court of Session: Refusing as unnecessary a petition by a local authority, who were proposing to build a new school on land within a public park, seeking an order authorising disposal of the part of the park on which they proposed to construct the school, the court held that the petitioners' proposals were properly characterised as appropriation, rather than a disposal, of inalienable common good land, which appropriation the court had no power to authorise. 

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. 

Contempt of court – Committal. The first defendant brought a claim against the claimant insurer as a result of a fall in a car park. The second and third defendants, his wife and stepson respectively, gave evidence in support of the first defendant's claim. The claimant denied the claim on the basis that the case was based on an audacious lie, and that the first defendant and his family had attempted fraudulently to repackage a vacation mishap as a very valuable claim for compensation. The claimant applied to commit the defendants for contempt of court. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed the application. 

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.