Latest Cases

Employment – Disability. The employee had been off work with severe depression and, after a brief secondment, she had been dismissed on grounds of capability. In allowing the employer's appeal, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the employment tribunal had erred in its decision in respect of both failure to have made reasonable adjustments under s 20 of the Equality Act 2010 and discrimination relating to disability under s 15 of the 2010 Act. Further, the tribunal had not sufficiently demonstrated that it had had the appropriate legal test in mind in finding harassment under s 40 of the 2010 Act. 

National Health Service – Hospital. The claimant received 1:1 supervision 24 hours a day as part of NHS continuing healthcare in the community funded by the defendant clinical commissioning group. She sought judicial review of the defendant's decision not to provide her usual funded package while she was in hospital. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the defendant's decision had been rational and had not breached arts 2 or 3 of Sch 1 to the Human Rights Act 1998. Further, the defendant had not breached its duty to meet the claimant's assessed need or to carry out an up-to-date assessment of her needs. 

Medical practitioner – Disciplinary committee. The appellant medical doctor appealed against a decision of the fitness to practice panel (FPP) of the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service of the General Medical Council when it decided to suspend the appellant's registration as a doctor for a period of nine months. The Administrative Court held that the decision was lawful and had been lawfully arrived at. 

Libel and slander – Identification of plaintiff. The claimant brought an action in defamation against the defendant newspaper in relation to words printed in a newspaper which the claimant alleged, amongst other things, called him a muslim extremist. The Queen's Bench Division held that the words pleaded in the particulars of claim did not bear the meaning attributed to them by the claimant and were therefore not defamatory. 

Arbitration – Award. The claimant, K, was a professional cricketer. In June 2012, the defendant body found him guilty of two charges, including inducing or encouraging, or attempting to induce or encourage, another cricketer to not to perform to his merits by deliberately conceding a minimum number of runs. He appealed to an arbitral panel, which confirmed that he was to be made subject to a life ban and to pay costs. He brought proceedings, contending that, among other things, the panel had exceeded its powers and that the decision should be set aside for serious irregularity pursuant to s 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996. The Commercial Court held that it had not done so, and that his claim would be dismissed. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The appellant Sri Lankan national had applied for indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom on the basis of continuous lawful residence for a period of ten years. The respondent Secretary of State refused the application. The First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) allowed his appeal on the ground that removal would be a disproportionate interference with his private life. The Upper Tribunal found that the FTT had erred in having given insufficient reasons for its decision. It re-made the decision and allowed the Secretary of State's appeal. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the Upper Tribunal had been entitled to set aside the decision of the FTT, but that it had erred in its calculation of continuous residence which it had taken into account in assessing the appellant's right to private life. The matter was remitted. 

Criminal law – Offensive weapons. High Court of Justiciary: Allowing an appeal against conviction by an appellant who was found guilty of having offensive weapons, namely a baton and knuckleduster, in his possession at Aberdeen Railway Station without reasonable excuse, the court held that sheriff erring in rejecting the appellant's defence of 'reasonable excuse' based on the fact that he was on his journey home after having bought the items in Cyprus. 

European Union – Freedom to provide services. The General Court of the European Union (Fourth Chamber) ruled, among other things, that arts 3 and 5 of Directive (EC) 2001/29 (on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society) had to be interpreted as precluding national legislation which excluded the right of authors to authorise or prohibit the communication of their works by a business, through the intentional distribution of a signal by means of a television or radio sets in the bedrooms of the establishment's patients. Article 16 of Directive 2006/123 (on services in the internal market) had to be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which reserved the exercise of collective management of copyright of certain protected works in the member state to a single collecting society. 

Defamation – Communication – Defence of veritas. Court of Session: In an action in which a former MP's office manager asserted that he had defamed her in statements alleging criminal misconduct and impugning her honesty, the court held that the defender had communicated the statements to persons other than the pursuer, they were not in substance true, and were made maliciously, and therefore the pursuer had proved that the defender had defamed her. An appropriate award for solatium was £15,000. 

Environment – Protection. High Court of Justiciary: Refusing appeals against conviction by a company and one of its directors who were found guilty of offences relating to keeping of controlled waste, and also the company's appeal against sentence, the court rejected contentions that the sheriff failed to give a direction on an essential fact requiring to be proved, that his directions were contradictory and incomprehensible, that the Crown had failed to prove that the company was not operating under an exemption, and that the fine of £200,000 imposed on the company was excessive.