Latest Cases

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. 

European Union – Jurisdiction. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of arts 22(1), 27 and 28 of Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001 (on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters). The request had been made in proceedings between two sisters, in which the applicant had sought an order in Munich that the respondent consent to the entry on the Land Registry of the applicant as the owner of a property following a third party issuing proceedings in Milan concerning the respondent's share. 

Employment – Wrongful dismissal. In allowing the employee's appeal against a finding by the employment tribunal of wrongful dismissal but where the award of compensation had been reduced by 100% due to contributory fault, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the possible alternative findings of deliberate misconduct or gross negligence on the employee's behalf did not justify the tribunal not making any factual finding as to conduct. The tribunal's failure to make those findings of fact had made it impossible to know why it had been concluded that the employee's conduct had been the sole cause of a dismissal or why it had not been just and equitable for the employee to receive a basic award pursuant to s 122(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. 

Medical treatment – Human reproduction. The claimant sought funding for oocyte cryopreservation before she began chemotherapy. The defendant refused and the claimant sought judicial review. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, rejected the claimant's main argument that the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's strong recommendation that oocyte cryopreservation should be offered to those in a like case to the claimant was a relevant consideration. It further rejected her claims of gender discrimination. 

Indictment – Particulars. The defendant had pleaded guilty to a number of fraud offences relating to representations he made when making and obtaining a number of re-mortgages. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division allowed an appeal against conviction on the basis that the indictment contained a number of crucial errors. The Court did not go so far as to declare the indictment a nullity but did provide guidance on the importance of properly constructed indictments. 

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. 

Judicial review – Leave to apply for judicial review. The landlord commenced possession proceedings in relation to the claimant who was a tenant. The claimant subsequently filed a defence to those proceedings. The matter came before the a judge who made an order for possession and struck out the defence. A warrant for possession was obtained and the claimant's application to strike out the possession order was struck out. The claimant appealed to a circuit judge however that judge found that the case had no merit and refused permission to appeal. The claimant appealed unsuccessfully to the Court of Appeal. Following that, the claimant therefore sought judicial review of the County Court's refusal of permission to appeal. The Administrative Court dismissed the application on the basis that the claimant could not bring himself within the exceptional circumstances required for the court to judicially review a Circuit judge's refusal of permission and the application should therefore be dismissed 

Income tax – Information notice. The First-tier Tribunal (Tax) (the FTT) granted the defendant Revenue and Customs Commissioners' (the Revenue) application for third party information and document notices, under para 2 of Sch 36 to the Finance Act 2008. The claimants sought judicial review of the Revenue and the FTT's decisions. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the giving of the notices had not been invalid due to a failure to give reasons or the giving of inadequate and late reasons. Further, there had been no breach of art 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights when taken in conjunction with art 8 of the Convention and/or art 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention. 

Judicial review – Legal aid. Court of Session: Refusing a reclaiming motion in judicial review proceedings brought by a serving prisoner, challenging the Scottish Legal Aid Board's refusal to treat advice given to him in connection with challenging his exclusion from the franchise in the European Court of Human Rights as a 'distinct matter', the court agreed with the Lord Ordinary's conclusion that the petitioner and others in a like position would not be able to obtain Scottish legal advice and assistance in connection with possible proceedings before the Strasbourg court beyond a possible diagnostic interview. 

Contract – Commission. The case concerned a claim by the claimant, a firm of yacht brokers, for commission on the sale of a yacht belonging the defendants. The claimant alleged that, pursuant to the first defendant's instructions, it had shown the yacht to M, the owner of a company, which had later bought it. The Commercial Court, in dismissing the claim, held that the claimant had not been instructed to market the yacht at the relevant time and, even if it had been, it had not been an effective cause of the eventual sale of the yacht to M's company.