Latest Cases

Employment – Unfair dismissal. The employees brought claims of unfair dismissal before the employment tribunal (the tribunal). The tribunal found that those claims were well founded and awarded compensation of £51,999.30 to the first employee and £9,031.04 to the second employee. The employer appealed against the decision on quantum. Allowing the appeal, the Employment Appeal Tribunal found that in the instant case the tribunal had considered what it would have seen as the correct outcome, and so had wrongly substituted its view for that of the employer. 

Bank – Banker/client relationship. Following the first claimant's default on a senior facilities agreement, the first defendant bank had disclosed reports to the second defendant competitor of the claimants. In considering the claimant's claims for breach of confidentiality, the Chancery Division considered that the first defendant had breached its contractual obligation of confidence and summarily assessed damages of £5,000 to reflect the amount that the first defendant would have had to pay for the work to be done if the second defendant had not been a company within the first claimant's group. The claim against the second defendant for breach of an equitable obligation of confidence was dismissed. 

Adoption – Dispensing with consent of parent or guardian. The step-father (B) of a minor (M) born in Thailand had made an application to adopt M. B and M's mother applied to dispense with the requirement to notify M's birth father (X) of the application. In allowing that application, the Family Division held that X was not an automatic party to the proceedings and the circumstances of the case justified confidentiality. 

Mental health – Persons who lack capacity. In considered the local authority's application for declarations regarding the capacity of T, who had mild learning disabilities, atypical autism and hyperactivity disorder, the Court of Protection held that T did not have the capacity to decide whether a person with whom he might wish to have sexual relations was safe or what support he required when having contact with an individual with whom he might wish to have sexual relations. The court gave declarations regarding T's care plan and dismissed the application to appoint the local authority as T's welfare deputy. 

Minor – Custody. In considering a proposed agreement made between the local authority and the parents of X, who had complex health needs and was in foster care, the Family Division endorsed the agreement and invited one of the parties to issue proceedings under the court's inherent jurisdiction. The court made several observations about the authority's handling of the case, particularly in regard to unacceptable delays and failure to make adequate assessments, but recognised the authority's assurances that those would not be repeated. 

Insurance – Policy. The county court found that the first defendant had miss-sold the claimants payment protection insurance (PPI) in breach of the Insurance Conduct of Business Rules (the Rules) and ordered it to pay damages. The first defendant appealed on the basis that a telephone conversation and the relevant documents, taken together, had given the claimants a full and clear breakdown of the cost of PPI. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that, even if treated as part of one overall process, the judge had been entitled to find that there had been a breach of the Rules and there were no grounds for interfering with his judgment. 

Insurance – Liability insurance. In dismissing both of the claimant's claims for indemnification from the Medical Protection Society Ltd, the Queen's Bench Division held that the claimant's failure to apply for indemnity prior to the commencement of the first claim had been fatal. Further, his decision to send letters to his patients seeking assurances that they would not issue proceedings had justified the dismissal of the claim for indemnity that the claimant had made in relation to the second claim. 

Immigration – Education. The Secretary of State decided to reduce the first claimant's confirmation of acceptance for studies allocation to zero, to suspend its highly trusted status licence and to require it to apply for a new licence. She further decided to suspend and then revoke the second claimant's highly trusted status licence. The claimants sought judicial review and the Secretary of State contended that the claims were academic. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the applications, held that the claims were academic and there was no benefit to the claimants in pursuing them. 

Libel and slander – Defamatory words. The claimant housemate in the 2012 series of Big Brother issued libel proceedings concerning two broadcasts of Big Brother. The producer and broadcaster sought summary judgment on the grounds that the words complained of were incapable of bearing the pleaded meanings and that they were not capable of being defamatory. The Queen's Bench Division, in granting the application, held that neither of the broadcasts had been capable of bearing the meanings alleged by the claimant or any other meanings defamatory of her. 

Costs – Employment tribunal. In allowing the employee and her solicitor's appeals against orders for costs made in favour of the employer following the dismissal of the employee's claims, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the employment tribunal had not considered whether the costs order against the employee had been appropriate or given the employee a chance to put forward evidence of her means. Further, the solicitor had not been invited to submit evidence of his advice to the employee, and the tribunal had made no findings of the effect of any negligence, such that the wasted costs order had been flawed.