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. 

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. 

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. 

Libel and slander – Fair comment. The first claimant well-known singer and television personality, and the second defendant professional footballer issued defamation proceedings against the defendant for an article published in its newspaper and on its website. The newspaper sought a determination that the words complained of were not capable of bearing the meaning attributed to them by the claimants. The Queen's Bench Division held that the two meanings pleaded by the first claimant were in fact one, which was defamatory and a statement of fact. The words complained of, in so far as they referred to the second claimant, bore a meaning which was substantially that which he attributed to them. 

Costs – Order for costs. Following a judgment in the favour of the defendant university, the issue of costs remained. The claimant student submitted that no order as to costs should be made, as the defendant had unreasonably failed to engage in alternative dispute resolution and had not succeeded on all the issues in the proceedings. The Administrative Court held that, in the circumstances, the appropriate order in the case was that the claimant should pay the defendant's costs in the case subject to detailed assessment if not agreed. 

Patent – Infringement. The claimant company owned a European patent for a method of manufacturing barrage units for flood defence. It brought proceedings, claiming that the defendants had infringed the patent. The Intellectual Property Enterprise Court considered, as a preliminary issue, whether there was an inventive step in the activities to which elements of its claim related. The court held that there was no inventive step, and hence the claim would be dismissed. 

Company – Merger. The Companies Court granted applications, under regs 11 and 13 of the Companies (Cross-Border Mergers) Regulations 2007 (the Regulations), for or an order convening a meeting shareholders and for the approval of members of two proposed cross-border mergers of companies within the Olympus group. It held that a proposed cross-border merger would be compliant with, and effective under, the Regulations and Council Directive (EC) 2005/56 in circumstances where the shareholders in the transferor company had agreed not to receive shares or other securities in the transferee. 

Arrest – Arrest without warrant. In considering the claimants' appeals in respect of whether their arrest and detention had been lawful under art 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the police actions had been lawful by reason of art 5(1)(c) of the Convention. The arrest and detention had been with the intention of bringing the claimant detainees before the competent legal authority at the time of arrest. Accordingly, their appeals were dismissed. 

Employment – Victimisation. The employment tribunal (the tribunal) had upheld a claim against Western Union Payment Services UK Ltd, in which the employee had alleged detriments caused by a protected disclosure pursuant to s 48 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. In allowing the appeal in part, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the tribunal had failed to demonstrate a causal link between the disclosure and the detriments, and had erred in failing to allow the parties an opportunity to make representations on the re-casting of allegations and amended list of issues contained in the tribunal's judgment. 

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.