Latest Cases

Employment – Continuity. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, applying established principles, decided that 'the client' in the present case had not been the same client for the purpose of demonstrating a service provision change. Therefore, the decision of the employment tribunal would be quashed and replaced by a finding that there had been no relevant transfer for the purpose of reg 3(1)(b) of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006, SI 2006/246. Further, while the tribunal had erred in looking at the activities rather than the task in considering whether the employment had been in connection with a single specific event or task of short-term duration, it was not open to the EAT to substitute its view in answering that question. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The parties divorced in Bulgaria and the wife applied pursuant to s 13 of the Matrimonial and Family Proceeding Act 1984, for leave to apply for financial relief pursuant to Pt III of that Act after an overseas divorce between the parties. The Family Division held that leave would be granted and that rr 14 and 15 of Family Court (Composition and Distribution of Business) Rules 2014, SI 840/14 read together with the definition of 'the court' in the Act meant that at the point of granting leave the court, acting judicially, might make a decision as to where the substantial application should be issued and as to the allocation of the future substantive proceedings. 

Adoption – Practice. The applicants sought a declaration that an adoption order made in Brazil in the applicants' favour in respect of their niece and nephew, D and E, be recognised under the law of England and Wales. The Family Division, in allowing the application, held that the adoptions of D and E should be properly recognised in accordance with the common law of England and Wales and that a declaration to that effect would be granted, pursuant to s 57 of the Family Law Act 1986. 

Sentence – Notification and orders. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant court's dismissal of his appeal, under s 91C of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, against the Chief Constable's refusal to relieve him of notification obligations. The Divisional Court gave guidance on the nature of the appeal to the magistrates' court under s 91E of the Act. It then found that the defendant had erred in law in dismissing the appeal. The matter was remitted to a freshly constituted court, as it could not be concluded that there had been only one decision which the defendant could have reached. 

Company – Voluntary winding up. The claimant companies sought relief, under s 212 of the Insolvency Act 1986, for the first defendant's misapplication of a company's funds while acting as its liquidator. The Chancery Division, in allowing the claim, held that the first defendant had acted in breach of the duty implicit in s 107 of the 1986 Act and had acted negligently in paying out the funds. Further, the first defendant's defences, including under s 1157 of the Companies Act 2006 and the illegality of the company's conduct were rejected, as her conduct had not been reasonable and the illegality defence did not arise in the circumstances. 

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. 

Employment – Contract of service. The defendant purported to resign from his employment with the claimant firm. However, his resignation was within the initial period within which he was not entitled to terminate according to the terms of his employment agreement. The claimant sought a declaration that the defendant continued to be in its employment and an order that restrained him from working elsewhere in accordance with the restrictive covenant in the agreement. The Queen's Bench Division allowed the application on the basis that the defendant remained employed until the expiry of his notice period, as modified by the claimant during the course of pre-litigation negotiations. The restrictive covenant would be enforced in modified form to reflect what was necessary protection for the claimant with regard to its clients and confidential information. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. Following the Supreme Court decision in Surrey County Council v P and others[2014] All ER (D) 185 (Mar), a concern arose following the judgment around the practical and procedural implications for the Court of Protection of what had been agreed would be the large increase in its case-load of, deprivation of liberty (DoL) cases which would follow in consequence of the Supreme Court's decision. In order to address the increase, the Court of Protection devised a standardised, and so far as possible 'streamlined', process, compatible with all the requirements of art 5 of the European Convention of Human Rights. 

Employment – Disability. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (the EAT) upheld the rejection by the employment tribunal of the employee's claims for, amongst other things, direct disability discrimination and failure to make reasonable adjustments. However, the EAT decided that in concluding that an adjustment to the scoring of criteria for selection for redundancy would not have avoided dismissal in any event, the reasonable adjustments duty should not have been limited to avoiding dismissal, but should have extended to avoiding detriment flowing from disadvantage, and the hurt feelings that would have resulted. Accordingly, the case would be remitted for reconsideration of that limited point only. 

Town and country planning – Development. The claimants, C and D, owned a farm, which D ran single-handedly at a loss. They wished to develop the farm's dwelling, which was built on condition that its occupation was permitted to persons employed in agriculture and their dependants. The inspector, appointed by the second defendant Secretary of State, refused the claimants' application for a lawful development certificate, as C and the children were not D's dependants. The claimants sought judicial review. The Planning Court, in dismissing the application, held that the term 'dependants' envisaged dependency in a wider way than one requiring financial dependency.