Latest Cases

Employment – Unfair dismissal. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in dismissing the employee's appeal, held that the employment tribunal had correctly held that, pursuant to the Equality Act 2010 (Work on Ships and Hovercraft) Regulations 2011, SI SI 2011/1771 and reg 19(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004, it had no jurisdiction to hear claims for unfair dismissal, discrimination and breach of contract, in respect of an employee who, at the time of his dismissal had been in service on a vessel under a Singaporean flag. 

Education – Higher education. The defendant University College London (UCL) rejected the claimant's application for admission to its Masters of Laws program. He issued proceedings under the Equality Act 2010 for UCL's failure to make reasonable adjustments and disability discrimination. UCL made summary judgment and strike out applications. The Central London County Court held that UCL had no duty on UCL to make reasonable adjustments so that the claimant had no reasonable grounds for bringing that claim, nor real prospect of succeeding. However, summary judgment and strike out would be refused with respect to his disability discrimination claim in the light of the considerations the court had to consider. 

Income tax – Deduction in computing profits. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (the tribunal) dismissed the appeal by the taxpayer geriatrician against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (FTT) in which the FTT had decided that certain travel expenses claimed by the taxpayer in respect of his private practice as a self-employed medical practitioner were not deductible. The tribunal took the view that those non-deductible travel expenses had not been 'wholly and exclusively' incurred for the purposes of the taxpayer's private practice as required by s 34 of the Income Tax (Trading and Other Income) Act 2005. 

Charterparty – Construction. The Commercial Court held that, on the true construction of a charterparty, motor oil (cargo) transferred by pirates from a vessel did not amount to 'in transit loss' or 'cargo loss' within the meaning of the charterparty. Accordingly, the owners of the vessel were not liable to the charterers under the charterparty. 

Confidential information – Injunction against disclosure of information. The claimants were granted injunctions, restraining the defendants using their confidential information. The defendants appealed on the basis that the parties' confidentiality agreement did not continue once a subcontract had been entered and that damages were an adequate remedy. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the judge had correctly found that the confidentiality agreement continued after the subcontract and that the relief granted had been a matter within the discretion of the judge with which the court would not interfere. 

Prison – Prisoner. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimant prisoner's application for judicial review of decisions concerning his recall to prison and the refusal to rescind that decision holding that in the instant case, the recall had not been unlawful. 

Unincorporated association – Dissolution. The Chancery Division considered an application by the trustees of the Graphic Reproduction Federation, who sought a declaration that the federation had been spontaneously dissolved at some stage between 1987 and the present day, or, alternatively, an order dissolving the federation pursuant to the court's inherent jurisdiction. The court held that, although the federation had not been dissolved, it was appropriate to make an order dissolving it. 

Solicitor – Negligence. The claimant had instructed the defendant firm of solicitors to represent her in divorce proceedings. The claimant completed a Form E, but her income had subsequently fallen over a period of four months. The defendants instructed counsel but failed to inform him of the fall in the claimant's income, and instead provided details of higher earnings. The ancillary relief proceedings were settled outside court, and the settlement was largely in line with the claimant's Calderbank offer that had been drafted in conference on counsel's advice. The claimant issued proceedings seeking damages for professional negligence against the defendants, based on their failure to inform counsel of the claimant's fall in income. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the claimant's appeal, held that there was no causative potency to the allegation, which had not been pleaded consistently during trial. 

European Union – Jurisdiction. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art 5(3) 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 Mr Kainz, who was resident in Salzburg (Austria), and Pantherwerke AG, the registered office of which was in Germany, concerning a claim for damages on the basis of liability for a defective product brought by Mr Kainz following an accident which he had suffered, in Germany, while riding a bicycle manufactured in that member state by Pantherwerke AG but purchased from a retailer in Austria. 

Mental health – Patient. The respondent was a patient under the Mental Health Act 1983. The NHS Trust responsible for the respondent applied to applied, pursuant to the 1983 Act (as amended), seeking authorisation and treatment of P's rectal bleeding. The Court of Protection found that the respondent did not have capacity and further the treatment was in his best interests.