Latest Cases

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. 

Libel and slander – Publication. The claimants asked the court to rule on the meanings of the allegedly defamatory documents, to strike out the defendants' defences of truth and qualified privilege, and to grant a final injunction. The Queen's Bench Division, in dismissing the application, held that the claimants had not shown that the defendants intended to publish the documents. Accordingly, there was no point in reaching a conclusion on the meanings or defences. Further, absent certainty of the words of any future publication, the claimants were not entitled to a final injunction. 

Criminal law – Procedure. The Lord Chief Justice, under his powers, handed down new Criminal Practice Directions, to take effect from 6 October 2014. The Practice Direction amends the Practice Direction (Costs in Criminal Proceedings) para 1.4, 2.1 and 2.2. 

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. 

Contract – Damages for breach. The claimant company brought a claim against the first defendant for damages for breaches of the terms of an agency agreement and/or breach of fiduciary duties by reason of his directorship and/or misuse of confidential information contained in the company's database. The company sought damages for unlawful means conspiracy in respect of the three defendants. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant, who had entry clearance as the post-flight spouse of a refugee, applied for public funds and indefinite leave to remain as a victim of domestic violence. The application was refused by the defendant Secretary of State and the claimant sought judicial review of the refusal. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the claimant failed to meet the requirement that her partner was a British citizen or a person settled in the UK, that the Secretary of State did not have a general discretion to provide public funds to a person in the claimant's position and, therefore, there was no basis on which to quash the Secretary of State's decision. 

Immigration – Permission to appeal – Supreme Court. Court of Session: Refusing a motion by a failed Nigerian asylum seeker, applying for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against a decision of the Court of Session refusing permission to appeal to it from decision of the Upper Tribunal, the court held that the motion could competently be heard by a procedural judge of the Inner House, the motion was not competent, and even if it had been the court would not have granted it.