Latest Cases

Family – Child of the family. There were before the court two application, one for financial provision and the other was whether the proceedings should be stayed on the grounds of forum non conveniens. The court held that due to delay the application on grounds of forum non conveniens would be refused and in any event, on the evidence it could not be said that the English court was incapable of reaching a fair conclusion on the evidence available. Appling established principles, based on the evidence the court awarded a total sum awarded by way of lump sum and periodical payments. 

Banking – Negligence. The first claimant, the club, was a casino in Mayfair, owned by the second claimant and third claimant. The defendant was a well known bank incorporated in Italy and part of the BNP Paribas Group. The club brought an action against the bank, alleging that the bank was negligent in providing a reference for one of its customers HB. HB's cheques were then accepted by the club which allowed him to play. HB made losses, the cheques bounced and neither he nor his assets could be found. The club claimed to have lost £1.25m. The Queen's Bench Division held that the club succeeded in its claim but for £802,940 not £1.25m and subject to a deduction of fifteen per cent for contributory negligence. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The respondent judicial authority sought the appellant's extradition to Germany to face prosecution for people trafficking. The appellant had a 12-year-old daughter who had disabilities. The district judge made an order for the appellant's extradition and the appellant appealed. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that extradition would not be a disproportionate interference with the appellant's or her daughter's rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Contract – Illegality. The employee had been allegedly trafficked from Nigeria to the United Kingdom by the employer to work illegally as an au pair. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, set aside an award of compensation granted in the employee's favour for unlawful discrimination in relation to her dismissal by the employer, having held that the illegality of the contract of employment had formed a material part of the employee's complaint and that to uphold it would be to condone the illegality. The employee appealed. The Supreme Court, allowing the appeal, held that it would be a breach of the UK's international obligations under the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings for its law to cause the employee's complaint to be defeated by the defence of illegality. The case was remitted to the tribunal in respect of a complaint in relation to pre-dismissal harassment. 

Equity – Breach of confidence. The defendant worked for the claimant company as a managing director. He was dismissed at a meeting in December 2012. On the day of the dismissal, after the meeting, he forwarded company documents to his personal email account and went home. The company brought proceedings for breach of confidence. The Chancery Division held that, on the evidence, the defendant had not behaved improperly, and the claim would be dismissed. 

Personal Injury: Quantum Case. Road traffic accident. The claimant was awarded £5,000 in general damages. He suffered a permanent scar over the lateral aspect of his left eyebrow which was 1 cm in length and slightly indented. He also suffered headaches and travel anxiety which resolved four months post-accident and abrasions to the left knee, ankle and hip, which resolved two weeks post-accident. 

Professional misconduct – Disciplinary proceedings. Following the second respondent's convictions for two counts of cruelty to a child under 16, the Fitness to Practise Panel of the first respondent General Pharmaceutical Council (the panel) found her fitness to practise was impaired and suspended her from the register for 12 months. The appellant Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care appealed. The Administrative Court, in allowing the appeal, held that the panel had erred in its approach to the question of the second respondent's insight into her conduct. The lack of insight and the lack of integrity identified by the panel meant that its decision to suspend, rather than remove, had been manifestly wrong. 

Dentist – Professional misconduct. The appellant dentist was alleged to have made inappropriate and dishonest claims in respect of payments from the NHS. A jury acquitted the appellant of fraud and theft, but the respondent General Dental Council proceeded to initiate disciplinary proceedings against him. The GDC refused to stay proceedings as an abuse of process and the appellant was subsequently erased from the register, and he appealed. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that there had been no error of law in the decision not to stay proceedings and there was no basis for challenging the outcome of the proceedings. 

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. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. A master ordered that judgment having been entered in default against the defendant, the matters pleaded in the particulars of claim were to stand as conclusive on the issues of breach of duty and causation there pleaded and it was therefore not open to the defendant to take issue with causation since that was a matter which, as far as he was concerned, was no longer in issue after the entering of the default judgment. The Queen's Bench Division allowed the defendant's appeal and ordered that the defendant was not precluded from advancing the causation arguments set out in the defendant's counter-schedule.