Latest Cases

Employment – Redundancy. Servisair UK Ltd dismissed certain employees on grounds of redundancy. The employees brought proceedings before the employment tribunal (the tribunal) which held that the dismissals had been unfair as there had been no redundancy situation and therefore no potentially fair reason for the employees' dismissals. Servisair appealed. The Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed the appeal on the basis that the tribunal judge had erred in her statement and application of the redundancy test as set out in Murray v Foyle Meats Ltd[1999] IRLR 562. The matter was remitted to be heard afresh by a new tribunal. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. Following final care and placement orders being made in respect of a young boy, the mother appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that, in a number of respects and in the circumstances, there had been no error in the judge's case management of the proceedings nor in his determination that the threshold criteria for making the orders had been met. 

Immigration – Deportation. The claimants were nationals of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (the DRC). R was a failed asylum seeker liable to deportation and P was a criminal deportee. They sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decisions to deport them to the DRC. The Administrative Court held that the decision that R would not be at risk of treatment contrary to art 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights had been reasonable, rational and based on objective country origin information. However, there was a real and substantial risk that P would be subjected to further imprisonment and ill-treatment if returned. 

Town and country planning – Grant of permission for development. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimant's application for judicial review of the defendant local authority's decision to grant planning permission to the interested party dismissing the claimant's allegation that in coming to the decision the planning committee had taken into consideration irrelevant considerations. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The defendant local authority granted the interested party planning permission for a steel framed livestock building, a temporary caravan and associated development. The claimants sought an order quashing the grant of planning permission. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, found one technical breach by the failure to explain the reasons for the decision, but found no prejudice as a result. All other grounds of challenge similarly failed. 

Company – Shares. The claimant was the son of the second defendant. He worked with her and her husband, the first defendant, in building up a business that traded goods from the United Kingdom to Russia. A dispute arose as the beneficial ownership of the issued shares in a company owned by the parties. The claimant submitted that he beneficially owned one third of the shares in the company. The Chancery Division held that, on the evidence, a third of the shares in the company were owned by the claimant, and hence his claim would succeed. 

Company – Insolvency. The administrators of 14 companies in the Lehman Brothers group (the applicants) applied for directions as to the potential liabilities of those companies to make payments to or for the benefit of the Lehman Brothers pension scheme. The Commercial Court held that, on the true construction of the relevant provisions of the Pension Act 2004, contribution notices might be issued under s 47 of the Act to more than one qualifying target which, in aggregate, specified a sum in excess of the maximum shortfall sum, as defined in s 48(2) of the Act and there might be recovered, under such contribution notices an aggregate sum in excess of the shortfall sum. 

European Union – Jurisdiction. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art 71 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 Nipponkoa Insurance Co. (Europe) Ltd and Inter-Zuid Transport BV concerning the payment of €500,000 compensation for damage suffered as a result of an international transport of goods by road. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Family Division made a placement order in respect of a child, ES, aged three, in circumstances where the local authority had previously established its claim of illicit contact between the mother and ES's father. The court held that, in the circumstances, a placement order leading to eventual adoption was the most appropriate solution to meet ES's welfare needs. 

Insurance – Reinsurance. The case concerned defendant insurance companies who had agreed to reinsure the claimant insurance company for a 50% share in respect of insurance provided by the claimant under a policy. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dealt with two preliminary issues concerning the interpretation of the policy and in dismissing the appeal of the claimant upheld an earlier decision.