Latest Cases

Employment – Discrimination. The employer was a Muslim chaplain employed with the prison service. His claim for, among other things, discrimination in respect of pay compared with Christian chaplains, was rejected by the employment tribunal (the tribunal). The Employment Appeal Tribunal held, inter alia, in allowing a cross-appeal by an employer, that the tribunal had erred in principle in fixing the parameters of the relevant pool to include all chaplains. 

European Union – Freedom of movement. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art of Directive (EC) 2004/38 of the European Parliament and of the Council (on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States), amending Regulation (EEC) 1612/68 and repealing other related directives. The request had been made in proceedings between Ms Reyes, who was a Philippines citizen, and the Swedish Immigration Board concerning the rejection of her application for a residence permit in Sweden. 

Compensation – Criminal injuries. The interested party suffered serious injuries from riding his bicycle into a car to avoid an aggressive dog. The claimant Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority refused his claim for compensation. The First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber) (the FTT) awarded him damages and the Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) (the UT) upheld its finding. The claimant appealed on the grounds that no criminal offence and, alternatively, no crime of violence had been committed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the appeal, held that the FTT's finding that an offence had been committed had been reasonably open to it. However, it had not been open to the FTT to find that the offence had been a crime of violence. 

Evidence – Without prejudice correspondence. The claimant bank claimed sums under a guarantee signed by the defendant. The judge held that the evidence was admissible, as the negotiations had not been conducted on a without prejudice basis, with the exception of one meeting. The defendant appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the judge had been entitled to reach the conclusion that he had. He had considered relevant matters, including that the parties had known how to expressly agree to negotiate on a without prejudice basis and there had been no trace of a legal dispute. 

European Union – Trade Marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Wilmar Trading Pte Ltd (Wilmar) against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 March 2012 (Case R 87/2012‑1), relating to opposition proceedings between Wilmar and Agroekola EOOD (Agroekola) regarding the application by Agroekola for registration of the word sign 'ULTRA CHOCO' as a Community trade mark. 

Human rights – Right to Fair Trial & Access to Justice. European Court of Human Rights: The European Court of Human Rights awarded €2,400 in non-pecuniary damages to the applicant where it found violations of art 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights in circumstances where the total lack of publicity of judicial proceedings concerning the dismissal of a civil servant in order to preserve the confidentiality of certain documents in the file was disproportionate. 

European Union – Employment. The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that European Union law, and, in particular, the principle of effectiveness, did not preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, making the right of an employee to seek a reassessment of the periods of service which should be taken into account in order to fix the reference date for the purposes of advancement subject to a 30-year limitation period, which had started to run from the conclusion of the agreement on the basis of which that reference date had been fixed or from the classification in an incorrect salary scale (see [37] of the judgment). 

Patent – Grant. The parties were involved in the manufacture of fire suppression systems. The defendant company patented a new system, and the claimant disputed the originality of the patent. The hearing officer dismissed the claimant's application. The claimant appealed to the Patents Court. The court held that, on the evidence, the hearing officer had been entitled to resort to the burden of proof in the way that he had done, and that his decision had not been wrong. 

Negligence – Personal injury. The claimant, a 40 year old woman in good health, developed upper leg pain which led to several operations and an eventual amputation. The claimant brought an action in negligence against the relevant NHS Trust. The Queen's Bench Division held that there had been no negligent delay in getting the claimant to theatre. Further there had been no inadequate remedial surgery carried out and finally there had been no negligent advice as to available reconstructive options once necrotising myositis had been overcome, leading to an unnecessary through-knee amputation. 

Town and country planning – Planning permission. The Administrative Court allowed the claimant developer's application for judicial review of the defendant local authority's decision not to determine an application for planning permission pursuant to s 70A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as the authority had failed to consider part of the relevant guidance.