Latest Cases

Restraint of trade by agreement – Employer and employee. The claimant sought to invoke a restrictive covenant in the defendant's employment contract following the defendant's resignation to work for another company. The judge, in considering the restrictive covenant had added correcting words and granted the claimant an injunction. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, discharged the injunction and held that the wording of the restrictive covenant had been clear and had not required additional words to be read in by the judge. 

Social security – Disability living allowance. The defendant Secretary of State adopted a 20m walking criterion for receipt of a personal independence payment enhanced rate in the Social Security (Personal Independent Payment) Regulations 2013, SI 2013/377. The claimant issued judicial review proceedings, challenging that decision. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that there had been a proper opportunity to make comments on the 20m criterion and that the consultees had had adequate information. Further, the Secretary of State had clearly had the impact of the proposals and his duty to have regard to that impact, under s 149 of the Equality Act 2010, well in mind. 

Prison – Release on licence. The claimant was released on licence, following a term of imprisonment for causing death by dangerous driving, subject to the condition that he was prevented from entering his home town and his family home. The claimant wished to visit his family home to provide care for his grandparents and sought judicial review of the condition. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that to exclude the claimant from visiting his family home would be an unjustified interference with his rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Trade mark – Infringement. The Chancery Division found that the defendant had infringed the claimant's registered mark but had not been guilty of passing off, in the use of the word 'glee' in its television series (see[2014] All ER (D) 70 (Feb)). The court made rulings concerning the relief to be granted. 

Immigration – Deportation. The claimant was an Indian national who first entered the United Kingdom pursuant to entry clearance as a student in order to study. She returned to the United Kingdom on 28 December 2011 from a holiday in India. She was questioned by the immigration officer, who made a decision that her purpose in entering the United Kingdom had changed from studying to working as a nanny, and on that basis, her leave to remain was cancelled. The claimant brought a claim for judicial review seeking damages for unlawful detention. Her claim was transferred to the Queen's Bench Division. That court held that the immigration officer had insufficient evidence on which to base his conclusion, that the claimant had been unlawfully detained and that therefore she was entitled to general damages. 

Nuisance – Noise. The Supreme Court ruled on consequential issues arising from its earlier judgment in Coventry and others v Lawrence and another[2014] All ER (D) 245 (Feb) concerning an action in nuisance brought by the appellant owners and occupiers of a residential bungalow against the respondent occupiers of a nearby stadium and their landlords. The issue as to whether the costs regime under the Access to Justice Act 1999, and in particular a claimant's right to recover any success fee and ATE premium from an unsuccessful defendant infringed the European Convention on Human Rights was adjourned for further hearing. 

Employment – Disability. The employee returned to work after a 62-day period of sickness absence resulting in the issue of a warning under the employer's attendance policy. The employee lodged a grievance requesting reasonable adjustments on grounds of disability. Following the rejection of that grievance, the employee brought proceedings in the employment tribunal claiming disability discrimination. The tribunal found that the duty to make reasonable adjustments had not been triggered because the employee had not been placed at a substantial disadvantage when compared with the appropriate comparator. On appeal, the Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld the tribunal's decision and dismissed the employee's appeal. 

Child – Care. M, who was 24 years old, was in the late stages of her first pregnancy. She suffered from persecuting delusions including a belief that mental health services were 'murderers' and would murder her and her unborn child. The local authority, applied to the court for permission not to disclose to M the care plan for the removal of her baby at birth. They also applied for a reporting restrictions order. The Family Division held that despite the fact that both orders sought were draconian, the orders would be granted in the circumstances of the case. 

Criminal law – Procedure. The Lord Chief Justice, handed down new Criminal Practice Directions, to take effect from 6 October 2014. The Practice Direction adds new Practice Directions at CPD I General Matters 5C, CPD II Preliminary Proceedings Pt 17 Extradition, CPD V Evidence Pt 33A and CPD VII Sentencing Q, amends CPD Preliminary Proceedings 16B and CPD X Appeal and includes a new section at CPD XIII Listing and Allocation. 

Employment – 'Worker'. The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal against a finding of the employment tribunal that the claimant had been an employee of an insolvent company, for which she had been the sole-owner, prior to it becoming insolvent and therefore entitled to a redundancy payment pursuant to s 166 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that, despite the claimant not having enforced her contractual right to the payment of a salary in the two years prior to insolvency, the tribunal had been entitled, on the facts, to find that the claimant had been an employee at the material time.