Latest Cases

Employment – Dismissal. In allowing the employer's appeal against the employment tribunal's (the tribunal) finding of unfair dismissal following a positive drugs test by the employee, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the tribunal had fallen into error in eliding the two questions of the reason for dismissal and the fairness of the dismissal for that reason. In the present case, the tribunal had wrongly substituted its mindset for that of the employer. 

Minor – Maintenance. The Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) found that the claimant professional gambler was obliged to pay child support maintenance on the First-tier Tribunal's (Social Security) factual findings that he was 'gainfully employed' as a 'self-employed earner'. The claimant appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the appeal, held that, on the facts, it could not be said that the claimant had had a sufficient organisation in his poker playing to make it amount to a trade or a business. However, it noted the Secretary of State's comment that there might be a way to compel him to make such contribution by making a 'departure direction'. 

European Union – Consumer protection. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of arts 6 to 8 of Council Directive (EEC) 93/13 (on unfair terms in consumer contracts) in conjunction with arts 38 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The request had been made in proceedings between the applicant and the respondent concerning the enforcement of an arbitration award ordering the latter to repay sums relating to a consumer credit contract. 

Immigration – Asylum seeker. The defendant Secretary of State decided that the claimant Chinese national had not basis of stay in the United Kingdom. The claimant sought judicial review of that decision. Before the hearing, the Secretary of State made very late disclosure of material including case record sheets (the records). Allowing the claim, the Administrative Court held that there had been an inconsistency between the information in the records and the Secretary of State's conclusions in her decision letter regarding the claimant's co-operation, reporting record and conduct at the reporting centres. That inconsistency had suggested that in concluding as she had done, the Secretary of State had taken into account matters which had essentially not been supported by the documentary evidence available to her and as such had made a material error. 

Practice and procedure – Defence. The Chancery Division, in granting the first to the fifth respondents an extension of time for service of their defences, held that an in-time application for an extension of time should not be treated as if it were an application for relief from sanctions, but should be judged against the overriding objective. 

Housing – Homeless person. The claimant's co-tenant had stopped paying rent and they had both fallen into arrears. The claimant refused her landlord's offers to find a new tenant and, after many warnings, the landlord had brought possession proceedings. In dismissing her appeal against the local authority's refusal to provide assistance under Pt 7 of the Housing Act 1996, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the claimant was intentionally homeless. 

Trust and trustee – Investments. The Upper Tribunal Tax and Chancery Chamber held that it was not bound by a previous decision of the High Court and that in any event the decision in Pierce v Wood was wrong. It further held that the Court of Appeal in Howell v Trippier had not held that the deeming effect of s 249(6)(b) Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 applied for the purposes of trust law generally or indeed for any purpose outside that Act. Section 249(6)(b) did not have any effect beyond that Act and that therefore the scrip dividend shares and their proceeds of sale were capital of the settlement. 

Mental health – Patient. The claimant had been released from hospital on conditional discharge. The defendant Secretary of State recalled him to hospital under s 42(3) of the Mental Health Act 1983. The claimant sought judicial review of that decision. His application was dismissed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed his appeal. The Secretary of State was not under an obligation to provide written reasons for recall at the time that a warrant for recall was executed. The oral reasons that had been given to the claimant had been sufficient. The Secretary of State's failure to provide adequate reasons within 72 hours had been a breach of art 5.2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, but that breach had not rendered the detention unlawful either at common law or under art 5.1 of the Convention. 

Practice – Civil litigation. The defendants appealed against the judge's grant of relief from sanctions to both sides. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the judge had been entitled to decide the matter as he had. On the facts, the relevant circumstances had included: (i) the non-compliance in the case had not been trivial and there had been no good reason for it; (ii) the trial date would not be lost; (iii) no significant extra cost would be occasioned; (iv) refusal to grant relief from the sanction would effectively mean the end of the claim; and (v) the defendants had been in default. 

Local authority – Social services. The defendant local authority decided to close an adult day centre. The claimant issued proceedings, contending that she and others should have been consulted and that the authority had failed to comply with the statutory public sector equality duty contained in s 149 of the Equality Act 2010. The judge dismissed the proceedings and the claimant appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the appeal, held that the authority's omission to consult the users and relatives on the closure of the centre before it had decided to close it had been unlawful, but that it had had regard to its public sector equality duty.