Latest Cases

Pension – Contributions. The claimant brought proceedings, contending, among other things, that he was entitled to a tax free cash lump sum (TFCLS) equating to 25% of the value of part of his pension held as a protected rights fund (PRF), and seeking to know whether he was entitled to vest his PRF with a third party as an open market option (OMO). The Chancery Division held that no agreement as to the TFCLS had been made as the claimant contended, and that the terms of a settlement between the claimant and the defendant pensions company prevented the OMO. 

Company – Scheme of arrangement. The Chancery Division sanctioned a scheme of arrangement in respect of the Stemcor steel-trading group where the test of fairness had been satisfied. 

Practice – Service. The claimant brought a claim for trade mark infringement. After more than 18 months had elapsed, there was no significant progress in the action. The Chancery Division held that there was little evidence to support the claimant's application, under CPR 7.6(3), for a retrospective extension of time to serve a claim form, which a judge had found not to have been served. Further, the claimant had not shown sufficient good reason to engage CPR 6.15 or CPR 6.27. It followed that the court's discretion would not be exercised to make a retrospective order under the CPR. 

Unfair dismissal – Constructive dismissal. The employee brought proceedings for, among other things, constructive dismissal. He sought to adduce an email that had been inadvertently disclosed to him prior to the commencing of proceedings. The employment tribunal did not allow him to do so, and dismissed his claim. He appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal. It held that, among other things, the employee's submissions regarding privilege required a general balancing of competing interests, which was impermissible in law. His appeal would be dismissed. 

Court-Martial – Judge-Advocate. The defendants were convicted of negligently performing his duty following the first defendant's discharge of a round from a general purpose machine, which occasioned death. They were sentenced to a term of 21 months' service detention for the first defendant and 14 months for the second defendant, and dismissal from the service. The first defendant appealed against conviction and both defendants appealed against sentence. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, dismissed the first defendant's appeal against conviction. However, it reduced the sentences to 15 months' detention for the first defendant and 12 months' detention for the second defendant. It further quashed the sentence of dismissal from the service and ordered the reduction to the rank of private soldier. 

Personal injury – Damages. Court of Session: In an action for damages for a lower back injury the pursuer suffered after falling down a flight of stairs in the course of her employment, the court awarded total damages of £89,302, including £18,000 for solatium, £35,397 for past wage loss, £6,000 for future wage loss, and £4,400 (past) and £14,720 (future) for necessary services rendered to her by her daughter. 

Employment – Wrongful dismissal. The employee was dismissed under a term in his contract (the clause) that stipulated that any breach of the customer or employer's security rules would result in his dismissal. He successfully brought proceedings for unfair and wrongful dismissal. The employer appealed. The Employment Appeal Tribunal held, in dismissing the appeal, that the clause only applied to a breach that was serious and wilful or grossly negligent, applying normal principles of employment law. Further, the process by which the employee had been dismissed had been unfair. 

Criminal law – Appeal. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, provided guidance in the approach to be taken when defendants' representatives apply for leave to appeal or appeal against conviction and/or sentence in circumstances when the defendant has absconded during the criminal prosecution process. 

Prison – Discipline. The claimant Muslim prisoner was found guilty of disobeying a lawful order after he had refused to undergo a drug test when he was fasting in observance of a religious festival. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimant's application for judicial review of the defendant prison governor's decision as he had been right to find that the request that the claimant undergo a drug test had been reasonable and therefore lawful. To adopt an approach of not testing the claimant on days when he was observing a fast would be to undermine the random nature of the drug testing programme. 

Income tax – Employment. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (the tribunal) ruled, amongst other things, on a taxpayer's application for judicial review of a decision of the Revenue and Customs Commissioners to refuse the taxpayer's application for relief pursuant to s 392 of the Income Tax (Earnings Pensions) Act 2003.