Latest Cases

Pension – Pension scheme. The claimant, a prison officer, was transferred out of the civil service into the private sector, under the Transfer of Employment (Protection of Undertakings) Regulations 2006, SI 2006/246 (TUPE). The pensions ombudsman rejected her complaint against the defendant cabinet office about the removal of her reserved right to an unreduced pension from age 55, following her transfer. The Chancery Division, allowing her appeal, held that the ombudsman's decision had erred in law in misconstruing the meaning of the term 'resignation' in r 1.13 of the Rules of the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme. The ordinary meaning of the word 'resignation' broadly covered a situation where someone had decided of their own accord to leave their employment, but did not apply where that person who was continuing to work full time in her former role, but who had been transferred under the terms of TUPE. 

Parent and child – Contact. Court of Session: In an appeal by the mother of three children in foster care against a sheriff's decision confirming a children's hearing's refusal to increase the level of contact between her and the children, the court held that the sheriff did not err in refusing the appeal to her, and observed that the appeal to the Court of Session was entirely futile. 

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. 

Bahamas – Injunction. The action concerned the construction of a cruise ship terminal and dock off the island of North Bimini and the creation of a 4.5 acre island offshore, using material dredged from the sea. The claimant company, formed by residents of the island, sought to prevent the development, which it believed would cause severe environmental damage. The Court of Appeal dismissed, by a majority, the claimant's appeal from a judge's decision to set aside an injunction to restrain the dredging of the sea, which had been granted to the claimant by the Board of the Privy Council. The Privy Council, in dismissing the claimant's appeal, held that, on the facts, there had been no error of law or perversity of fact in the judge's decision and the Court of Appeal had been right to uphold it. 

Employment – Discrimination. Following the judgment of the Supreme Court in Seldon v Clarkson Wright & Jakes (see [2012] 3 All ER 1301), the case returned to the employment tribunal (the tribunal) for a decision as to whether the selection by the employer solicitors' firm of the compulsory age of 65 for retirement had been proportionate to achieve its aims of retention and workforce planning. The Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld the tribunal's decision that the choice of age 65 had been proportionate. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant applied for leave to remain in the United Kingdom and for an application fee waiver under the defendant Secretary of State's destitution fee waiver policy. The Secretary of State rejected the application, refusing to waive the application fee as the claimant did not qualify for a waiver. The claimant sought judicial review. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that the policy was unlawful in that the refusal to waive the application fee was incompatible with the claimant's rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The claimant was seriously injured through the defendant's admitted negligence in a road traffic accident in April 2012. A master ordered an interim payment of £500,000 to be paid to the claimant. The defendant appealed by way of challenge to the issues of contributory negligence and accommodation costs. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed the appeal as the decision of the master could not be faulted. 

Value added tax – Input tax. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) had found that the taxpayer was not entitled to deduct input tax from the fees that it had paid under a tri-partite agreement because it had not been the recipient of the supply of services for the purposes of s 24 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, upheld that decision as the tribunal had asked itself the correct question and had reached sustainable conclusions on its assessment of the relevant agreement. 

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. 

Civil procedure – Summary decree. Court of Session: In an action to enforce an award of expenses made in judicial review proceedings brought by the defender's late mother, the court, granting summary decree, held that there was no defence to the action as the defence was dependent on a counterclaim that was incompetent, which failing irrelevant.