Latest Cases

Employment – Disability. The claimant police officer (the officer) had brought a claim of discrimination on ground of disability before the employment tribunal against the decision of the employer police force, taken by the Police Misconduct Board (the Board) to continue proceedings for gross misconduct against her and in failing to make reasonable adjustments based on her post-traumatic stress disorder. In dismissing the officer's appeal, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the Board was entitled to judicial immunity against claims impugning its conduct. 

Deed – Construction. The proceedings concerned the administration of a pension scheme. It was discovered that a number of documents described as deeds had not been properly completed. The Chancery Division considered the consequences of the failure to properly complete the documents and made rulings concerning the effects of the error. 

Unfair dismissal – Determination whether dismissal fair or unfair. In dismissing the employer's appeal against the findings by the employment tribunal (the tribunal) of breach of contract, unfair dismissal and discrimination by reason of sex, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held, inter alia, that the employer had failed to show the reason why the deductions from the employee's wages had been reduced, and that the tribunal had not erred in its approach to the burden of proof when considering the complaints of discrimination. The employee's appeal, against the tribunal's rejection of a claim for reduction of wages during a relevant time period, was allowed. 

Unfair dismissal – Compensation. In determining the level of basic and compensatory awards to which the employee was entitled following a finding of unfair dismissal by the employment tribunal (the tribunal), the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the tribunal's failure to make a reduction pursuant to Polkey v AE Dayton Services ([1987] All England LR 974) was puzzling given its finding of 50% contributory fault on the employee's part. Further, the operation of s 123(6) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 did not permit the differential treatment of different elements of a compensatory award. 

Royal College of General Practitioners – Medical practitioner. The claimant British Association of Physicians of Indian Origin sought to challenge by way of judicial review the lawfulness of the continuing adoption and application of the Clinical Skills Assessment (CSA) by the first defendant Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) as assessors and the second defendant General Medical Council as regulators. Dismissing the claim, the Administrative Court held that at the time of the instant proceedings, the defendants had not been in breach of their public sector equality duty under s 149 of the Equality Act 2010. Further, the requirement to pass the CSA had not been unlawfully racially discriminatory either directly or indirectly. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The respondent judicial authority sought the appellant Lithuanian national's extradition pursuant to a European arrest warrant in order to stand trial for the theft of £14,000. The appellant had been diagnosed with schizophrenia and relied on his family for support. There was a risk that he would attempt suicide if extradited. The district judge ordered the appellant's extradition and he appealed. Dismissing the appeal, the Administrative Court held that the appellant could not establish that his extradition would be oppressive due to his mental condition as there had been no evidence that he would not receive treatment in prison in Lithuania. Further, the appellant's extradition would not be a disproportionate interference with his right to family life in the circumstances. 

Immigration – Deportation. The claimant Jamaican national had been convicted of murder in the United Kingdom. The defendant Secretary of State decided to deport him and refused his claim for refugee and human rights protection on the basis of homosexuality. The First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (the FTT) and the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (the UT) found in the claimant's favour and the Secretary of State appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the UT had been correct to find no error of law in the FTT's finding that the claimant was a homosexual and had not erred in concluding that the claimant had succeeded in rebutting the presumption of dangerousness under s 72 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. 

Income Tax – Pay as you earn (PAYE) system. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (the tribunal) dismissed the taxpayers' appeals against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) which had dismissed appeals by the taxpayers against determinations and notices of decisions assessing the taxpayer as liable for a substantial sum in respect of unpaid income tax and national insurance contributions. The tribunal further refused the taxpayers permission for judicial review of those determinations and notices of decisions. 

Employment Appeal Tribunal – Practice. The employment tribunal (the tribunal) dismissed the employee's claims of unfair dismissal and the Employment Appeal Tribunal (the EAT) dismissed the employee's appeal. The employee appealed on the grounds that the EAT had applied the wrong test upon the question whether the case should be remitted and it should have remitted the case. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the EAT had applied the correct test for remittal. Further, the tribunal had been bound to make its findings subject to a new point, which disclosed no arguable error of law. 

Criminal law – Trial. The defendants appealed against their convictions for conspiracy to defraud on the ground that the judge had not properly summed up their cases. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that, although the defence submissions had not been summarised by the judge, the jury would have clearly appreciated the arguments and the issues. In consequence, the verdicts were not vitiated because of that notable deficiency in the summing up.