Latest Cases

Employment – Unfair dismissal. The employment tribunal (the tribunal) found that the employee, who previously had a poor attendance record, had been dismissed unfairly by reason of her pregnancy. It made an award in respect of a basic award and a compensatory award. The employer appealed against the failure by the tribunal to make any deduction by way of contributory conduct. Allowing the appeal, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the tribunal had erred in law in failing to consider whether or not there had been a chance, on the evidence, that the employee would have been dismissed, fairly, in any event. 

Income tax – Earnings from employment. The taxpayer banks (UBS and Deutsche Bank) had set up schemes to pay employees' bonuses in such a way that they could avoid paying income tax and national insurance contributions. The schemes involved 'restricted securities' and so took advantage of the tax exemption benefits of Ch 2 of Pt 7 of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003. The Revenue and Customs Commissioners determined that income tax and national insurance had been payable. The First-tier Tribunal (Tax) dismissed the banks' appeals. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) allowed UBS's appeal and upheld the scheme, while DB's appeal was dismissed as having failed to meet the requirements of s 429 of the Act. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, found that both schemes had fallen within the regime under Ch 2 of the Act so had been eligible for the corresponding tax benefits. 

European Union – Telecommunications. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art 52(3) of Directive (EC) 2007/64 (on payment services in the internal market). The request had been made in proceedings between the Consumer Information Association and T-Mobile Austria GmbH (T-Mobile), concerning T-Mobile's pricing practice of requiring its clients to pay additional charges where payment was made through online banking or by way of paper transfer order. 

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. 

Employment – Victimisation - Protected disclosure. The Employment Appeal Tribunal gave guidance as to the approach employment tribunals should take when considering claims by employees for victimisation for having made protected disclosures. The Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed the employer's appeal against the decision that the employee had suffered a detriment short of dismissal, but dismissed the appeal against the decision that the dismissal had been automatically unfair, as the tribunal had found that the principal reason for the dismissal had been the making of protected disclosures. 

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. 

Practice – Order. The defendant was found guilty of offences relating to dealing improperly in firearms and imprisoned. Among other things, an order was made by the court for the forfeiture of guns owned by a company controlled by the defendant. The defendant appealed against the order. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that the order would be quashed. The forfeiture order had been made against the defendant and not the company. 

Employment – Remuneration. The employee had brought a claim in the employment tribunal (the tribunal) for unlawful deductions from wages. In dismissing the employee's appeal against the rejection of her claim, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the tribunal, in a sufficiently reasoned decision, had been entitled to find that the payments had been discretionary under an honorarium scheme and that the employer had been entitled to stop the payments following a re-evaluation of the employee's job title and description. 

European Union – Rules on competition. The Court of Justice of the European Union annulled part of judgment of the General Court of the European Union, in which it had rejected actions by Areva SA and the Alstom group companies regarding a decision by the European Commission finding the existence of a cartel in gas insulted switchgear and imposing fines calculated on a joint and several liability basis. 

Unfair dismissal – Determination whether dismissal fair or unfair. In allowing the employer's appeal against the finding by the employment tribunal (the tribunal) of unfair dismissal, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the tribunal had erred by substituting its decision for that of the employer in deciding whether dismissal for refusal to obey a specific instruction against a background of warnings for similar conduct had fallen outside the band of reasonable responses of a reasonable employer.