Latest Cases

Criminal law – Trial. The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that evidence of gunshot residue had been properly admitted and that, although the judge's directions on that evidence could have been better crafted, there had been no misdirection. Further, the judge's directions as a whole had been adequate and no alibi direction had been necessary. The judge had correctly excluded evidence of an incident in an alleged blood feud as unconnected with subsequent incidents and the killing of the deceased. 

Discrimination – Race discrimination. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in dismissing the employer's appeal against a finding of race discrimination, held that the employment tribunal had not erred in concluding that there had been sufficient evidence from which an inference of race discrimination could be drawn so as to shift the burden of providing a non-discriminatory explanation to the employer. 

Employment – Confidential information. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in dismissing the employer's appeal, held that, on the facts, the employment tribunal had not erred in holding that three emails from an employee to an employer, taken together, could amount to a qualifying disclosure within the meaning of s 43B(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. 

Discrimination – Disability discrimination. The Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed an employer's appeal against the employment tribunal's finding of disability discrimination in relation to an employee where the tribunal's reasoning on the question of the employer's actual and constructive knowledge of the employee's disability and on its breach of duty to make reasonable adjustments had been insufficient. 

Immigration – Asylum seeker. The appellant Afghani national appealed against the decision of the Upper Tribunal (Asylum and Immigration Chamber) (UT) to dismiss his appeal against the refusal of the defendant Secretary of State to grant him asylum or humanitarian protection on the grounds that it would be safe for him to return to Afghanistan. Dismissing the appeal, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the UT had not been unaware of the nature of the appellant's case or of the evidence of threatening letters sent to the appellant by radical Islamic groups and his failure to respond to them. The UT had not made an error of law in reaching its decision. 

Road traffic – Accident. The claimant sought an assessment of damages in the sum of £5764.80. A recorder assessed his damages in the sum of £1436.78. The reduction being affected in respect of the daily rate of hire charges incurred by the claimant whilst his own vehicle was being repaired. The claimant appealed. The Queen's Bench Division, held that the rate of hire identified had been correct however the claimant was entitled to a further nine days' hire at the rate identified by the judge. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Globosat Programadora Ltda (Globosat) against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) relating to opposition proceedings between Globosat and Sport TV Portugal (SPORT TV) concerning the application by Sport TV for registration of a word sign 'SPORT TV INTERNACIONAL' as a Community trade mark. 

Health and safety at work – Employer's duties. The employment tribunal affirmed, with modifications, an improvement notice issued by the health and safety inspector, finding that the claimant had given unsuitable and insufficient advice in relation to the risk of presence of asbestos. The tribunal left the parties to agree the actual modifications to the notice. The claimant appealed. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that there was no detectable error of law in the tribunal finding that the claimant had failed to advise on the obtaining and including of a full asbestos survey. Further, the modifications were permissible and there were procedural mechanisms for making the modified terms certain. 

Mental health – Persons who lack capacity. The claimant, D, was injured in a road accident and lacked the mental capacity to conduct proceedings on her own behalf. She issued proceedings against the road user who had injured her, and was not represented by a litigation friend. She was persuaded to settle the claim for a grossly undervalued sum. The Supreme Court held that D had lacked the capacity to commence and conduct proceedings. She ought to have had a litigation friend from the outset, and any settlement ought to have been approved by the court under CPR 21.10(1). The consent order under which the claim had been settled would be set aside and the claim would go to trial. 

Libel and slander – Defamatory words. The claimant issued proceedings for defamation against the defendant, who applied for an adjournment to issue an application to strike out the claim as an abuse of process. The Queen's Bench Division held that it was required to determine the meaning of the words complained of, and that would not preclude an application to strike out. Notwithstanding that the words complained of portrayed the claimant as a victim, the natural and ordinary meaning of the words in the instant case was defamatory.