Latest Cases

Data protection – Processing of information. The claimant issued proceedings seeking relief, including damages, for the defendant Ministry of Justice's breach of its duty under s 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998. The Queen's Bench Division, in allowing the application, held that the defendant had contravened the provisions of the Act in relation to some material by a delay in its provision to the claimant. Accordingly, the claimant would be entitled to £1 for the delay and £2,250 for the distress he had suffered as a result of the delay. 

Employment – Discrimination. The employees brought a test claim before the employment tribunal, contending that members of the black and minority ethnic group suffered discrimination in that they were more likely to fail an assessment leading to higher grades in the civil service. The employment tribunal (tribunal) held that the employees had to show, not only systematic disadvantage, but the reason for failing the assessment. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, allowing the employees' appeal, held that the tribunal had erred in asking that a further matter be established by an employee, for which s 19 of the Equality Act 2010 did not specifically provide. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The defendant local authority granted planning permission to the interested party for the development of an agricultural building, subject to conditions. The claimant sought judicial review of the decision to grant planning permission. The Planning Court, in dismissing the application, held that the claimant had failed to establish an error of law in the authority's decision-making process and that the authority had not failed to have regard to material considerations. 

Performance bond – Certificate of default – Validity. Court of Session: In an action which concerned a demand which a planning authority served on the defender, in the form of certificate of default, to make payment of £3.3m in terms of a performance bond relating to a coal mining company's breach of its restoration obligations under an agreement relative to planning permission, the court held that the certificate of default was invalid because it omitted to state, as required by the bond agreement, that the pursuer had given the company a 60-day notice of its failure in the restoration obligations. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The claimants claimed damages and an injunction for libel, slander, malicious falsehood, breach of confidence, breach of contract and conspiracy on the basis that the defendants were alleged to have accused the claimants of trickery and defrauding their clients through a publication which it was alleged the defendant's were responsible. There was a failure to file a defence and an order was made debarring the defendants from defending. The first and third defendants applied for relief from sanctions. The Queen's Bench Division considering CPR 3.9 held that the application by the first defendant for relief against sanctions would be refused. The application by the third defendant for relief against sanctions would be allowed. 

Practice – Interest. A judgment was given for the claimant company in the Russian court, but later set aside. However, the principal sums came to be paid, because the claimant identified assets of the defendant company within the Dutch jurisdiction. The awards did not mention interest. The Commercial Court held that, on the evidence, there was no ex nihilo nil fit principle which precluded the enforcement of the awards. The interest on the awards would not be enforceable in the Russian courts, but was in England. However, whether it ought to be awarded as a matter of discretion was for later determination. 

Insolvency – Transaction at undervalue. A company sold premises to the second appellant, which granted security over the premises to the first appellant. The company's liquidator sought the reduction of first appellant's security on the basis that the disposition of the company's property had been gratuitous alienation. The Extra Division of the Inner House of the Court of Session set aside the judge's decision that the sale had been for adequate consideration, under s 242(4) of the Insolvency Act 1986. The Supreme Court, in allowing the appellants' appeal, held that the judge had not erred in finding that the alienation had been made for adequate consideration and that the Extra Division had erred in finding that he had gone plainly wrong in dealing with the evidence. 

European Union – Patent. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of arts 1 and 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1610/96 of the European Parliament and of the Council (concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for plant protection products). The request had been made in proceedings between Bayer CropScience AG (Bayer) and the German Patent and Trade Mark Office concerning the validity of a decision by which that office had refused to grant a supplementary protection certificate to Bayer in respect of a safener, Isoxadifen, and the salts and esters thereof. 

Employment – Unfair dismissal. The employee, a former police officer, appealed against an employment tribunal's dismissal of his claim, which contended that he had been unfairly dismissal on the ground of protected disclosures he had made. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, dismissing the appeal, held that on the facts, the tribunal had not erred in its approach either in deciding that the employee had not been subjected to detriments on the ground that he had made protected disclosures or in finding that the dismissal and the detriments to which he had been subjected had had nothing at all to do with matters related to race. Section 47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996 did not prohibit the drawing of a distinction between the making of protected disclosures and the manner or way in which an employee went about the process of dealing with protected disclosures. 

Medical practitioner – Professional misconduct. The appellant Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care appealed against the Fitness to Practise Panel of the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service's (the panel) finding that the registrant psychiatrist's online psychiatric blog was not a 'medical practice' and that his conduct had not amounted to misconduct. The Administrative Court, in allowing the appeal, held that a finding of misconduct was warranted. In particular, the panel had erred in asking itself too limited a question as to whether the blog had been a medical practice.