Latest Cases

European Union – Employment. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of cll 3 and 5 of the Framework Agreement (on fixed-term work) concluded on 18 March 1999, which was annexed to Council Directive (EC) 1999/70 (concerning the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP). Those requests had been made in proceedings between workers employed as seafarers and their employer, Rete Ferroviaria Italiana SpA, concerning the classification of contracts of employment between them. 

Health and safety at work – Health and safety inspector. The defendant inspector employed by the Health and Safety Executive served a prohibition notice against the appellant sub-contractor on the basis that the appellant had not prevented access to conducting parts of the electrical system that 'can be energised and made live'. On appeal by the appellant, the employment tribunal (the tribunal) modified the notice, but upheld it. The Administrative Court, in allowing the appellant's appeal, held that the tribunal had been wrong to decide that the only means of dealing with the situation had been the issue of the notice. 

Immigration – Asylum/deportation – Refusal of leave to appeal. Court of Session: Dismissing a judicial review petition by a Gambian national who sought reduction of the Upper Tribunal's decision to refuse leave to appeal against the First Tier Tribunal dismissal of his appeal against refusal of asylum and against deportation, the court rejected the petitioner's argument that there were two compelling reasons and one important point of principle which justified the further progress of the case. 

Employment – Restrictive covenants. Court of Session: In an action in which a financial services company sought interdict and interim interdict to prevent alleged breaches of covenants by a financial advisor after he left their employment and joined a rival company, the court held that the petitioners had made out a prima facie case of breach of non-solicitation/non-dealing provisions but not as regards use of trade secrets and, concluding that the balance of convenience favoured the petitioner, it granted interim interdict in terms of part of the prayer of the petition and refused it in relation to the other part. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. There was an application before the court in respect of DD, a 36 year old woman with learning difficulties, who was pregnant with her sixth child. The applicants sought for declarations and orders in relation to the care and health of DD during the final stage of her current pregnancy, and in the safe delivery of the unborn baby. The applicants applied for a further order authorising the conduct of an assessment of DD's capacity to make decisions about contraception, following the imminent birth. The Court of Protection made the orders as requested based on the evidence before the court and taking into account the Metal Capacity Act 2005. However the court held that it was not in DD's best interest that she should be subject of a one day assessment of her capacity to make decisions about contraception at the present stage. 

Local government – Power of attorney. AB was born in Ireland in 1928 and suffered from dementia. Her nephews MD and WD were jointly and severally appointed to be her attorneys under an Enduring Power of Attorney (EPA) with general authority to act on her behalf in relation to all her property and affairs. The local authority wrote to the Office of the Public Guardian expressing its concern that AB's attorneys had not paid her residential care home fees. The Public Guardian opened a formal investigation into the matter and applied to the court for an order under sch 4 to para 16(4)(g) and (5) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, directing the revocation of the EPA and directing the Public Guardian to cancel the registration of the EPA and an order inviting the authority to seek to apply to become deputy in respect of the management of AB's property. The Court of Protection held that the court had no confidence in the figures provided by MD and WD and the EPA would be revoked. 

Income tax – Company. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (the tribunal) allowed the appeal by Bupa Insurance Ltd (BIL), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bupa Finance plc (BF), against a decision of the Revenue and Customs Commissioners rejecting BIL's claim for consortium relief pursuant to ss 402(3) and 406(1) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988. The tribunal decided that BF was 'beneficially entitled' to any distribution of profits available to equity holders so as to determine the 'relevant fraction' that should apply to limit the amount of loses of the surrendering company that could be set against the total profits of BIL. 

Immigration – Education. The claimant college sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision to revoke its sponsor status without considering its submissions. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that the claim was not academic and the Secretary of State's proposed resolution was an attempt to avoid the formal quashing of the decisions. Further, the Secretary of State's offer to reconsider suffered from the same defect as the proposal and the court had to express some significant degree of disapproval of the Secretary of State's conduct. 

European Union – Legal basis for regulation. The General Court of the European Union granted the application by Sorinet Commercial Trust Bankers Ltd (Sorinet) for annulment of: (i) Council Decision 2012/829/CFSP, amending Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP (concerning restrictive measures against Iran), in so far as it had listed Sorinet in Annex II to Decision 2010/413; and (ii) Council Decision 2013/270/CFSP, in so far as it had maintained Sorinet's listing in Annex II to Decision 2010/413 and Implementing Regulation (EU) No 522/2013, in so far as it had maintained Sorinet's listing in Annex IX to Implementing Regulation (EU) 267/2012. 

Charity – Company. A charity, the Commonwealth Institute, was in voluntary liquidation. The liquidators applied to the court under s 112 of the Insolvency Act 1986 for directions on various issues. The Companies Court made a number of rulings on, among other things, the distribution of the property of the charity, and the compensation of trustees.