Archibald -v- Taylor; PC 1-Mar-1878

Nova Scotia

Court: PC
Date: 01-Mar-1878
Links: Bailii,
References: [1878] UKPC 10,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Commonwealth

Archibald Nugent Robertson -v- The Balmain New Ferry Company Limited; PC 10-Dec-1909

Australia

Court: PC
Date: 10-Dec-1909
Links: Bailii,
References: [1909] UKPC 58,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Commonwealth

Altun -v- Turkey; ECHR 19-Oct-2006

Court: ECHR
Date: 19-Oct-2006
Statutes: European Convention on Human Rights
Links: Bailii,
References: 66354/01, [2006] ECHR 875,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Human Rights

Alk-Abello Ltd -v- Meridian Medical Technologies Dey Pharma Lp; PCC 9-Nov-2010

The court was asked whether the case should be transferred from the Patents County Court to the High Court Patents Court.

Court: PCC
Date: 09-Nov-2010
Judges: Birss QC HHJ
Statutes: County Courts Act 1984 42, Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 289(2)
Links: Bailii,
References: [2010] EWPCC 14, [2011] FSR 13

Leave a Comment

Filed under Intellectual Property, Litigation Practice

W City Council -v- L; CoP 11-Feb-2015

Court: CoP
Date: 11-Feb-2015
Links: Bailii,
References: [2015] EWCOP 20,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Health

Nursing and Midwifery Council -v- Lagah-Bona; Admn 19-Nov-2014

Court: Admn
Date: 19-Nov-2014
Links: Bailii,
References: [2014] EWHC 4090 (Admin),

Leave a Comment

Filed under Health Professions

Moreno -v- The Motor Insurers Bureau; QBD 23-Apr-2015

Court: QBD
Date: 23-Apr-2015
Judges: Gilbart J
Links: Bailii,
References: [2015] EWHC 1142 (QB),

Leave a Comment

Filed under Personal Injury

British Airline Pilots Association -v- Jet2Com Ltd; QBD 23-Apr-2015

Dispute as to method of implementation of collective bargaining arrangements.

Court: QBD
Date: 23-Apr-2015
Judges: Supperstone J
Links: Bailii,
References: [2015] EWHC 1110 (QB),

Leave a Comment

Filed under Employment

Asghar and Another -v- Ahmad and Others; QBD 23-Apr-2015

The claimants elleged defamation by the defendants in the course of disputes as to the management of mosques in South Wales.

Court: QBD
Date: 23-Apr-2015
Judges: Jeremy Baker J
Links: Bailii,
References: [2015] EWHC 1118 (QB),

Leave a Comment

Filed under Defamation

Everclear Ltd (Bvi) -v- Agrest and Another; CA 9-Mar-2011

The former husband appealed against an order made on the basis that his transfer of a company shareholding was a sham.

Court: CA
Date: 09-Mar-2011
Statutes: Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 23
Links: Bailii,
References: [2011] EWCA Civ 232,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Family

XYZ -v- Various; QBD 8-Apr-2015

Costs consequential on adjournment of hearing of PIP breast implant litigation.

Court: QBD
Date: 08-Apr-2015
Judges: Thirlwall DBE J
Links: Bailii,
References: [2015] EWHC 1151 (QB),

Leave a Comment

Filed under Costs

Barnett -v- Medway NHS Foundation Trust; QBD 23-Feb-2015

The Claimant claims damages for pain, injury, loss and damage arising out of his medical treatment at the Medway Maritime Hospital

Court: QBD
Date: 23-Feb-2015
Judges: Brian Forster QC HHJ
Links: Bailii,
References: [2015] EWHC 440 (QB),

Leave a Comment

Filed under Professional Negligence

Lamb -v- Transco Plc; EAT 15-Nov-2004

EAT Unfair Dismissal – Exclusions including worker – contributory fault
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Exclusions including worker/jurisdiction.

Court: EAT
Date: 15-Nov-2004
Judges: The Honourable Lord Johnston
Links: Bailii, EAT,
References: EAT/0030/04, [2004] UKEAT 0030_04_1511

Leave a Comment

Filed under Employment

L -v- L; FD 2-May-2006

Held: a final ancillary relief order that has been made by a District Judge by consent can in principle be reviewed by the court if there has been fraud, mistake or material non-disclosure.
A final ancillary relief order that has been made by a District Judge by consent can in principle be reviewed by the court if there has been fraud, mistake or material non-disclosure.
Munby J said: ‘There is an extensive jurisprudence analysing the means by which such applications can be brought before the court . . Much of this jurisprudence is both complex and, particularly where what is sought is to challenge a consent order made by a district judge, confusing and confused. It is, I venture to suggest, yet another area where there is a pressing need for legislative clarification and simplification. As Bracewell J pointed out in Benson v Benson (Deceased) [1996] 1 FLR 692, at 606, Ward J (as he then was) had commented as long as 1989 in B-T v B-T (Divorce: Procedure) [1990] 2 FLR 1 that the various procedures were unsatisfactory and cumbersome, yet, as she dryly observed, ‘the difficulties persist’. That was in 1995. In 2002 in S v S (Ancillary Relief: Consent Order) [2002] EWHC 223 (Fam), [2003] Fam 1, [2002] 1 FLR 992, at para [11], the same judge observed that the law was in ‘a most unsatisfactory state’. It is now 2006 and little has been done, and nothing effective, to remedy matters.’
and . . ‘it suffices to say that where it is sought to challenge a consent order in ancillary relief proceedings it is, or may be, possible to do so by one or more of the following:
(i) a fresh action to set aside the consent order;
(ii) an appeal;
(iii) an application to the judge at first instance’.

Court: FD
Date: 02-May-2006
Judges: Munby J
Links: Bailii,
References: [2006] EWHC 956 (Fam), [2008] 1 FLR 26
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Family, Litigation Practice

Williams -v- Amey Services Ltd (Unfair Dismissal: Contributory Fault); EAT 16-Feb-2015

Unfair Dismissal: Contributory Fault – Polkey deduction
Employment Rights Act 1996 sections 122(2) (basic award) and 123(1) and (6) (compensatory award)
Unfair Dismissal – Compensatory Award – Polkey reduction

Court: EAT
Date: 16-Feb-2015
Judges: Eady QC HHJ
Statutes: Employment Rights Act 1996 122(2) 123(1) 123(6)
Links: Bailii,
References: [2015] UKEAT 0287_14_1602,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Employment

Prime Healthcare UK Ltd -v- Brown (Practice and Procedure: Bias, Misconduct and Procedural Irregularity); EAT 9-Feb-2015

EAT Practice and Procedure: Bias, Misconduct and Procedural Irregularity – There appears to have been a substantial irregularity in that the Employment Judge refused to allow a witness called by the Respondent to give evidence, although he could have given highly material evidence.
It is also fairly arguable that the Employment Judge made findings which were not supported by any evidence.

Court: EAT
Date: 09-Feb-2015
Judges: Serota QC HHJ
Links: Bailii,
References: [2015] UKEAT 0230_14_0902,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Employment

Moss -v- Reliance Mutual Insurance Society Ltd (Equal Pay Act: Material Factor Defence and Justification); EAT 22-Apr-2015

EAT Equal Pay Act: Material Factor Defence and Justification – SEX DISCRIMINATION – Direct – UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Constructive dismissal
The Employment Tribunal upheld the Respondent’s genuine material factor defence to the Appellant’s equal pay claim. No error of law shown. The sex discrimination claim failed on the facts and on limitation grounds. The Employment Tribunal found permissibly that the Respondent was not in repudiatory breach of contract so that the constructive unfair dismissal claim also failed. Accordingly, appeal dismissed.

Court: EAT
Date: 22-Apr-2015
Judges: Peter Clarke HHJ
Links: Bailii,
References: [2015] UKEAT 0135_14_2204,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Employment

Habinteg Housing Association Ltd -v- Holleron (Practice and Procedure); EAT 20-Feb-2015

EAT Practice and Procedure – An Employment Tribunal found in favour of the Claimant on one of the claims she made. It thought it just and equitable to extend time. On appeal the employer argued, successfully, that since there had been no evidence given by the Claimant to explain why she had been late in making a claim, and the reason was not obviously to be inferred, there was no proper basis for making the claim.

Court: EAT
Date: 20-Feb-2015
Judges: Langstaff P J
Links: Bailii,
References: [2015] UKEAT 0274_14_2002,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Employment

Costello -v- Gloucestershire County Council and Another (Unfair Dismissal: Constructive Dismissal); EAT 26-Feb-2015

EAT Unfair Dismissal: Constructive Dismissal – The Employment Tribunal dismissed the Claimant’s claim that she had been constructively dismissed on the basis that her employer had breached the implied term of trust and confidence.
She appealed on the grounds that the Employment Tribunal had failed to make an objective assessment of the employer’s conduct but had considered their subjective intentions and beliefs. On analysis that submission was not well founded and the appeal was simply an attack on a factual finding of the Employment Tribunal that there had been no repudiatory breach by the employer.

Court: EAT
Date: 26-Feb-2015
Judges: Shanls HHJ
Links: Bailii,
References: [2015] UKEAT 0386_14_2602,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Employment

Coleman and Others -v- Polestar UK Print Ltd (Working Time Regulations: Holiday Pay); EAT 20-Feb-2015

EAT Working Time Regulations: Holiday Pay – The Appellants worked a complicated shift system. They were paid the same amount each week whether or not they were rostered to work, however many hours they worked and whether or not they were on holiday. The suggestion that they were not being paid in respect of holiday was unsupportable.

Court: EAT
Date: 20-Feb-2015
Judges: Shanks HHJ
Links: Bailii,
References: [2015] UKEAT 0376_14_2002,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Employment

Hicks -v- Young; QBD 24-Apr-2015

Judgment on liability – claimant falling from moving taxi

Court: QBD
Date: 24-Apr-2015
Judges: Edis J
Links: Bailii,
References: [2015] EWHC 1144 (QB),

Leave a Comment

Filed under Personal Injury

The Police and Crime Commissioner for Devon & Cornwall -v- Naldrett (Contract of Employment : Notice and Pay In Lieu); EAT 12-Feb-2015

EAT Contract of Employment : Notice and Pay In Lieu
The Claimant was dismissed. He claimed in respect of unfair dismissal and lack of notice pay. The Employment Tribunal found his dismissal was fair. The Employment Tribunal recognised that the test for notice pay differed from unfair dismissal. It was required to decide if the Claimant had breached his contract. The Employment Tribunal decided that the Claimant had not, stating that the Claimant gave direct oral evidence to that effect, whereas the Respondent did not lead direct oral evidence but relied on hearsay evidence. The Respondent argued that the Employment Tribunal had not applied the correct test or if it had it had not explained its reasoning.
Held: the Employment Tribunal gave insufficient reasoning to show why it had placed no weight on indirect evidence and had accepted the Claimant’s oral evidence. Case remitted to the same Employment Tribunal to receive written submissions on the question of notice pay only and to give a fresh decision.

Court: EAT
Date: 12-Feb-2015
Judges: Lady Stacey
Links: Bailii,
References: [2015] UKEAT 0401_14_1202,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Employment

Remploy Ltd -v- Abbott and Others (Practice and Procedure : Amendment); EAT 24-Apr-2015

EAT Practice and Procedure : Amendment – Case management
1. These proceedings involve approximately 1,600 individual claims for unfair dismissal arising out of mass redundancies when the Respondent, ‘Remploy’, closed some 60 plants in 2012 and 2013.
2. The Employment Tribunal had carefully and effectively managed the case on the basis of proceeding with a limited number of lead or test cases, raising generic issues that applied across the board to all Claimants, as a result of there having been national policies applied across the country to redundancies in all Remploy facilities.
3. The Claimants were members of trade unions and represented by experienced solicitors and counsel. The claims forms had been professionally drafted. The allegations of unfairness included the allegation that the Respondent had failed to consult with the Claimants in relation to possible redeployment to other factories. Prior to September 2014 the parties had been working on the basis of the case management model; the process of preparing witness statements and giving disclosure was well under way and a hearing date had been set for November 2014.
4. In September 2014 the Claimants applied to raise further issues as to unfair selection for redundancy and failure to consider various possible redeployments other than to ‘other factories’. These issues did not arise out of any national policies but arose on a plant by plant basis. The Claimants maintained that the new allegations were simply further Particulars of allegations already pleaded and that permission to amend was not required. However they sought, and were granted, permission to amend. The Respondent argued that the effect of allowing the amendments would be to fracture the existing case management model as the new issues (which had not been particularised, nor were the Claimants concerned identified) were not capable of being determined on the basis of the existing case management model and would lead to delay (the proceedings were in fact adjourned on two further occasions) and added expense of providing further witness statements and disclosure. The Respondent also claimed that it was prejudiced by the proposed amendments as its work force, including managers with the relevant knowledge had been dispersed and documents and email archives were no longer available.
5. The Employment Judge considered that he was bound by the decision in Langston v Cranfield University [1998] IRLR 172 to investigate in any case of unfair dismissal by reason of redundancy, as implicit in that claim, that the unfairness incorporated unfair selection, lack of consultation and failure to seek alternative employment on the part of the employer, even if not specifically pleaded or raised as issues by the Claimants.
6. The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the Employment Judge had fallen into error, firstly by allowing amendments that had not been fully formulated or particularised and by considering them together rather than examining each proposed amendment separately. Without properly formulated and particularised draft amendments it was impossible for the Employment Tribunal (or the Respondent) to consider how the amendments would affect the existing case management model and whether or not they could be accommodated by a limited number of lead or test cases, the effect on existing hearing dates, prejudice to the Respondent, for example in identifying necessary witnesses and having access to relevant documentation and information. The Employment Tribunal should also have considered the reasons for the delay by the Claimants in putting forward the suggested amendments and when they or their legal representatives were first aware of the relevant factual basis for the ‘new’ allegations. It was also necessary to consider the effect on any increase in likely costs to the parties and on expenditure of the resources of the Employment Tribunal.
7. The decision in Langston had no blanket application and no application to a case such as the instant case in which the parties were legally represented, had defined in their pleadings the issues they wanted decided by the Employment Tribunal and where there had been extensive and comprehensive case management on the basis of the pleadings.
8. The permission of the Employment Tribunal was necessary to add new Particulars in any event and it had to consider whether or not to allow amendment on conventional principles as set out for example in Selkent Bus Co Ltd v Moore [1996] IRLR 661, [1996] ICR 836.
9. Notwithstanding the reluctance of the Employment Appeal Tribunal to interfere with discretionary case management decisions of Employment Tribunals, the decision in the instant case to grant permission to amend was sufficiently flawed as to require being set aside

Court: EAT
Date: 24-Apr-2015
Judges: Serota QC HHJ
Links: Bailii,
References: [2015] UKEAT 0405_14_2404,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Employment

Re B and G (Children), Leeds City Council -v- M and Others; FC 27-Mar-2015

Care proceedings in relation to two children, B, a boy, born in July 2010 and G, a girl, born in July 2011. The local authority had asserted that the young girl was at risk of female genital mutilation.

Court: FC
Date: 27-Mar-2015
Judges: Sir James Munby P FD
Links: Bailii,
References: [2015] EWFC 27,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Childrern

Migliaccio and Others -v- Smith (Southern) (Unfair Dismissal: Constructive Dismissal); EAT 12-Feb-2014

EAT Unfair Dismissal: Constructive Dismissal – Whether, at the time of the Claimants’ resignations, it was a term of their contracts of employment that they were entitled to share gratuities left by customers on whom they waited. On the facts it was found that the Employment Judge was entitled to conclude that the arrangement was no longer contractual after 2009. Thus the Claimants were not constructively dismissed in July 2013.

Court: EAT
Date: 12-Feb-2014
Judges: Peter Clark HHJ
Links: Bailii,
References: [2014] UKEAT 0267_14_1202,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Employment

Chadburn -v- Doncaster & Bassetlaw Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and Another (Practice and Procedure: Costs); EAT 19-Feb-2015

EAT Practice and Procedure: Costs – 1. Although reference was made to the possibility of a payment on divorce being available to discharge a costs award, it was not a material consideration in the decision to award costs which was principally based on the Claimant’s age and the likelihood that she would earn sufficient in the rest of her working life to pay such an award.
2. Further, there was no error in the failure to reduce the costs award in light of the Claimant’s more serious debt position, since no precise estimate of what was affordable had been made, and the award amounted to less than a third of the costs incurred by the Respondent in defending the unreasonably pursued, false claim of race discrimination.
3. Accordingly the appeal failed.

Court: EAT
Date: 19-Feb-2015
Judges: Simpler J
Links: Bailii,
References: [2015] UKEAT 0259_14_1902,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Employment

Unwin -v- Oltec Group Trading Ltd and Another (Contract of Employment : Implied Term/Variation/Construction of Term); EAT 13-Feb-2015

EAT Contract of Employment : Implied Term/Variation/Construction of Term – DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION – Burden of proof
The Employment Tribunal had concluded that a contract of employment which stated that the Claimant was employed to work a minimum of 48 hours in fact meant a maximum of 48 hours. That finding was perverse: no one had contended for it and there was no evidence to support it and all indications were that the Claimant worked more than 48 hours a week.
The Claimant was disabled because he had been diagnosed with cancer. On being certified fit to work after a period of absence by his GP he was not allowed to return to the site he had been working at and later the principal (the Second Respondent) required a special assessment of his capability to be made. The Employment Tribunal failed entirely to mention or record the terms of section 13, 15, 41 or 136 of the Equality Act 2010, all of which were relevant to his claims of disability discrimination against his employer (the First Respondent) and the Second Respondent and it could not be seen from the Judgment that they had in fact applied them or reached findings of fact which inevitably led to the claims being refused.
Appeal allowed on both those points and on a finding that the Claimant had not been dismissed and not had an unlawful deduction of wages or suffered a breach of contract which flowed from the erroneous finding on his contractual terms.

Court: EAT
Date: 13-Feb-2015
Judges: Shanks HHJ
Links: Bailii,
References: [2015] UKEAT 0322_14_1302,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Discrimination, Employment

Razak -v- IHS Global Ltd (Jurisdictional Points: Extension of Time: Just and Equitable); EAT 3-Feb-2015

EAT Jurisdictional Points: Extension of Time: Just and Equitable
Although there were aspects of the procedure adopted by the Employment Tribunal which were not ideal, the appeal was dismissed as there was no error of law disclosed:
(i) In their decision that the Claimant had not put forward a case that her dismissal (which took place less than three months before the ET1) was part of a continuous course of conduct involving sex discrimination which otherwise ended more than three months before the ET1;
(ii) In their decision that it would not be just and equitable to allow her claims based on that course of conduct to proceed.

Court: EAT
Date: 03-Feb-2015
Judges: Shanks HHJ
Links: Bailii,
References: [2015] UKEAT 0331_14_0302,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Employment

Bradburn & 5 Others -v- Strathclyde Joint Police Board Sub Nom Scottish Police Authority (Practice and Procedure: Preliminary Issues); EAT 18-Mar-2015

EAT Practice and Procedure: Preliminary Issues – Jurisdiction – Dispute resolution procedures
The six Claimants worked in a unionised office. In 2008, several of their colleagues raised a grievance which included complaints about not having being paid night-shift premium, a failure which had been ongoing since the office opened in 2005. A claim was not made until 2011, after continuation of the same series of deductions. If one had been made before 5 April 2009, the dispute resolution procedures under the Employment Act 2002 would have been mandatory. As it was, the transitional provisions applied. At a first hearing it was accordingly held that because none of the six were named in their colleagues’ collective grievance, the Employment Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear any part of the claim. After appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal, the matter was remitted to the Employment Tribunal to decide if the Claimants had been party to the grievance within the meaning of the transitional provisions and dispute procedure regulations. At that, the Employment Tribunal decided that the grievance had been one presented by a trade union representative on behalf of those making it, and that the Claimants were party to it. He held that the collective grievance fell within the regulations, and that to suggest that the Claimants were not party to it was to take an unduly technical approach. Since it was common ground that no Claimant had been named or identified in the grievance, nor had any signed it, there was no adequate basis to hold that any was a party to it. Since the dispute resolution procedures had been abolished, and the transactional provisions did not apply to render them applicable to the Claimants’ cases (since the Claimants had not been a party to any grievance which fell within the regulations prior to 5 April 2009), the post April 2009 law applied, and there was no jurisdictional bar to the claims proceeding. The appeals were allowed, though it was accepted that it remained open to the Respondent to argue that insofar as the claims related to underpayments prior to 5 April 2009, they might be barred for failure then to comply with the dispute resolution procedures.

Court: EAT
Date: 18-Mar-2015
Judges: Langstaff P J
Links: Bailii,
References: [2015] UKEAT 0039_13_1803,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Employment

Monfared -v- Spire Health Care Ltd; EAT 11-Jun-2014

EAT Practice and Procedure : Appellate jurisdiction/reasons/Burns-Barke
Case management
The Claimant’s applications under Rule 3 raising interim appeals against tribunal orders were dismissed as the employment tribunal had subsequently struck out the entire claim. Edem applied. In any event on the merits there were no reasonable prospects and the then ongoing proceedings would be jeopardised.

Court: EAT
Date: 11-Jun-2014
Judges: McMullen QC HHJ
Links: Bailii,
References: [2014] UKEAT 1598_13_1106,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Employment

Birring -v- Rogers & Moore (T/A Charity Link (Jurisdictional Points); EAT 25-Mar-2015

EAT Jurisdictional Points – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Chairman alone
An Employment Judge sitting alone heard a claim of unfair dismissal (which he should hear alone unless he exercised discretion not to do so) together with one in respect of detriment for trade union activity (which he could only hear with lay members, unless the parties agreed otherwise). He did not consider whether to exercise his discretion to sit with members in respect of the dismissal claim. Held that he should have done so; and that it was so unlikely that the discretion could have been exercised in this case other than by having a combined hearing of the claims, sitting with lay members, that the matter would be remitted to a fresh Tribunal for hearing on that basis, unless an Employment Judge with responsibility for the case later determined for good reason that the two claims (which were linked, though not entirely overlapping) should be heard separately. The fees paid for appealing were to be paid in full by the Respondent to the Claimant.

Court: EAT
Date: 25-Mar-2015
Judges: Langstaff P J
Links: Bailii,
References: [2015] UKEAT 0388_14_2503,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Employment

Baillon -v- Gwent Police (Practice and Procedure: Costs); EAT 25-Feb-2015

EAT Practice and Procedure: Costs – UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Compensation
The Employment Tribunal found that the Claimant had been unfairly constructively dismissed by his employer. In the course of the Remedies Hearings: (i) the Employment Tribunal assessed the Claimant’s loss of income for the period after his dismissal; (ii) the Employment Tribunal stated that the Claimant would not have left his employment before he was 60, following which the parties agreed a figure for pension loss of £429,000 odd; (iii) the Employment Tribunal dismissed the Claimant’s application for costs.
On appeal and cross-appeal, the Employment Appeal Tribunal:
(i) Allowed the Claimant’s appeal on the assessment of his loss of income: the Employment Tribunal’s figures were arbitrary and had no clear rationale;
(ii) Dismissed the employer’s cross-appeal against the pension loss: although the Employment Tribunal’s conclusion about the Claimant leaving employment may have been perverse, the parties had subsequently agreed the figure for pension loss without seeking to challenge the conclusion in any way;
(iii) Dismissed the Claimant’s appeal against the refusal to award him costs: however egregious an employer’s conduct in relation to an unfair dismissal, costs can only be awarded against them if they have acted unreasonably in their conduct of the proceedings.

Court: EAT
Date: 25-Feb-2015
Judges: Shanks HHJ
Links: Bailii,
References: [2015] UKEAT 0354_14_2502,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Costs, Employment

Adecco Group Uk & Ireland -v- Gregory and Another (Unfair Dismissal: Dismissal/Ambiguous Resignation); EAT 19-Mar-2015

EAT Unfair Dismissal: Dismissal/Ambiguous Resignation – AGENCY WORKERS
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Time for appealing
The Claimant was an agency worker, found to be employed by the agency. After an assignment to the Second Respondent (‘R2′) which had lasted several years came to an end, and a van and fuel card handed back by the Claimant to the First Respondent (‘R1′), she did no further work for R1 or R2, though R2 (the agency) told her it would try to arrange some if she wanted it. She indicated that she was not interested, and R2 lost contact with her until a month later she complained she had been unfairly dismissed by R1 and by R2. R1 told her that it was not her employer but that R2 was. After a further month, R2 wrote to the Claimant, enclosing her P45 and saying that if she wished it would try to arrange further work for her, but if she did not or did not respond within two weeks, she would be treated as wishing to terminate her employment. The Judge held this letter amounted to a dismissal, but did not apply the objective reading of the letter, nor explain why in context this amounted to a dismissal.
In a further hearing, the Employment Tribunal held that it was just and equitable to extend time for a claim under the Agency Workers Regulations, but in exercising its discretion said it was relevant to consider when the Claimant first knew of the acts which she complained of as breaches of those Regulations. However, it did not answer that question at all, but in purported discussion of it addressed the wholly different question of why the Claimant had been late in submitting her claim. The approach to exercises of the discretion was thus flawed, and the decision needed to be taken afresh.
The questions whether the Claimant resigned or was dismissed and if so when, and whether her claim was within the normal time limit, as well as the question whether in all the circumstances it would be just and equitable to extend time for her claim in respect of the Agency Workers Regulations were remitted to a fresh Tribunal. It would be open to that Employment Tribunal to consider whether the Claimant (if she wished to do so) could advance a claim of constructive dismissal.

Court: EAT
Date: 19-Mar-2015
Judges: Langstaff P J
Links: Bailii,
References: [2015] UKEAT 0024_14_1903,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Employment

Oni -v- Unison (Practice and Procedure: Costs); EAT 17-Feb-2015

EAT Practice and Procedure: Costs – The Tribunal erred in law in assuming that once it had been established that there was unreasonable conduct in persisting with proceedings following a deposit order, a costs order should follow subject only to considering means. Even where unreasonable conduct has been found, a Tribunal has discretion as to whether costs should be awarded, and if so, in what amount, and must consider all relevant circumstances in exercising that discretion.
The question whether costs should be awarded and if so in what amount involved the exercise of discretion and, inherently therefore, a range of possible outcomes. There was not ‘only one outcome’ and accordingly the Employment Appeal Tribunal had no jurisdiction to determine this issue absent agreement from both parties.
Although unusual, given a number of matters referred to in the Tribunal’s Reasons that led to the conclusion that there was insufficient confidence that the Tribunal was not so committed to its decision that a rethink was likely, the matter would be remitted to a differently constituted Tribunal.

Court: EAT
Date: 17-Feb-2015
Judges: Simler J
Links: Bailii,
References: [2015] UKEAT 0371_14_1702,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Employment

Fox -v- British Airways Plc (Unfair Dismissal: Reasonableness of Dismissal); EAT 22-Apr-2015

Unfair Dismissal: Reasonableness of Dismissal – DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION – Reasonable adjustments
Unfair Dismissal – fairness of the decision to dismiss
In circumstances where the advice available to the employer had materially changed between the taking of the decision to dismiss and the dismissal itself, a question arose as to whether this impacted upon the fairness of the dismissal. This was an issue raised by the Claimant’s case before the Employment Tribunal but the reasons provided did not demonstrate engagement with it. Appeal against the dismissal of the unfair dismissal case allowed.
Disability Discrimination – failure to make reasonable adjustments
On the Claimant’s first point under this head – whether a dismissal could be a provision, criterion or practice – following Nottingham City Transport Ltd v Harvey UKEAT/ 0032/12/JOJ, a practice had ‘something of the element of repetition about it’. In the circumstances, the Employment Tribunal had reached a permissible conclusion that the individual dismissal of the Claimant in this case had not, of itself, amounted to a PCP (albeit that it might have been the result of an application of a PCP).
On the PCP found by the Employment Tribunal – the application of the Respondent’s appeal process (in particular, a seven day time limit for submitting an appeal) – a difficulty arose in the Employment Tribunal’s finding that this had given rise to a ‘substantial disadvantage’ to the Claimant as a disabled person as compared to those who were not so disabled. The Employment Tribunal’s reasoning for this conclusion was not apparent, particularly given the adjustment the Respondent had already made (allowing for a possible extension of time).
If there was a substantial disadvantage, the Employment Tribunal had been entitled to conclude that the adjustments proposed by the Claimant were not ‘reasonable’ in terms of the questions of cost and practicability. There was, however, no clear indication that it had applied section 18B Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and had regard to the extent to which taking the steps in question might have prevented the disadvantage suffered (assessing this question as a matter of balance rather than adopting an all or nothing approach). The Employment Tribunal’s representation of the medical evidence further failed to address the nuanced picture that presented (relevant to this assessment). This part of the appeal against the dismissal of the disability discrimination claim would therefore also be allowed.
Directions given for further submissions to be made (as advised) as to disposal.

Court: EAT
Date: 22-Apr-2015
Judges: Eady QC HHJ
Statutes: Disability Discrimination Act 1995 18B
Links: Bailii,
References: [2015] UKEAT 0315_14_2204,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Discrimination, Employment

Adama -v- Partnerships In Care Ltd; EAT 12-Jun-2014

EAT Unfair Dismissal : Reasonableness of Dismissal – The Employment Tribunal failed to consider for itself the fairness of the dismissal under Employment Rights Act 1996 section 98(4). Miss Perry v Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust UKEAT/0473/130 and Ms Brito-Babapulle v Ealing Hospital NHS Trust UKEAT/0358/12 applied. Case remitted to a differently constituted Employment Tribunal to consider the fairness of the dismissal. Original decisions as to the reason for the dismissal and the adequacy of the investigation into gross misconduct to stand.

Court: EAT
Date: 12-Jun-2014
Judges: Slade J
Statutes: Employment Rights Act 1996 98(4)
Links: Bailii,
References: [2014] UKEAT 0047_14_1206,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Employment

Hamer -v- Kaltz Ltd; EAT 4-Aug-2014

EAT Unfair Dismissal – Contributory fault – Polkey deduction – The Employment Tribunal found the Claimant’s dismissal to be unfair because the principal reason was that the employee made a protected disclosure (section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996). Initially it made a basic award of £3,325 and a compensatory award of £30,616. The matter was remitted to it by the Employment Appeal Tribunal to consider and give reasons in respect of Polkey and conduct. On remission it made no compensatory award, holding by way of Polkey finding that the Claimant would inevitably have been dismissed on the same date. It found that there should be a 10% reduction in the basic award for conduct. On appeal again, it was held that it was impossible to see how the Employment Tribunal reconciled its Polkey finding with other findings in its original Liability Reasons and in the reasons it gave for reducing the award for conduct by just 10%. The Employment Tribunal’s Reasons did not meet the minimum requisite standard. The appeal was accordingly allowed. A cross-appeal on the conduct issue was dismissed. The parties invited the Employment Appeal Tribunal to make its own assessment on the Polkey issue: the assessment was that there should be a 40% reduction.

Court: EAT
Date: 04-Aug-2014
Judges: David Richardson J
Links: Bailii,
References: [2014] UKEAT 0502_13_0408,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Employment

Robinson -v- Robinson (Practice Note); CA 2-Jan-1982

The husband was a serving soldier who had had various postings abroad. The wife returned home, where she discovered that she was pregnant. He followed her home, but she left him, and applied for maintenance. The justices found that she had deserted him, and that her behaviour was ‘gross and obvious misconduct’ and reduced her maintenance award accordingly. She appealed from a refusal of the divisional court to vary the order.
Held: Her appeal was dismissed. The justices had found behaviour sufficient to offend a reasonable man’s sense of justice if not allowed to affect the order. Referring to West v West, Waller LJ said: ‘There is, however, an important point of difference in that in West v. West the judge found that the husband had to accept a share of the responsibility for the breakdown or failure to start the marriage, although by far and away the greater burden was on the wife. In the present case the husband was said to be blameless. In my opinion there is very little to choose between them. For the husband to be blameless is an unusual feature and the fact that the marriage broke down in just over four years does not make the case so different when this feature is taken into account. This is not the kind of case that Ormrod J. refers to when he says in Wachtel v. Wachtel [1973] Fam. 72, 80B: ‘ generally speaking, the causes of breakdown are complex and rarely to be found wholly or mainly on one side…”

Court: CA
Date: 02-Jan-1982
Judges: Waller LJ
Statutes: Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Act 1978 2(1)(a) 3(1)(g)
References: [1982] 2 WLR 146, [1983] Fam 52
Cases Cited:
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Family

Esso Petroleum Company -v- Jarvis & others Brentvine Limited; EAT 14-Nov-2001

The claimants had come to the employer through an agency. The issue now was whether they were the employees of the respondent. The employer said there was no mutuality of obligation, and therefore no contract, and no possible dismissal.
Held: The tribunals findings of fact could not support their conclusion that in law the claiments were employees of the respondent.

Court: EAT
Date: 14-Nov-2001
Judges: His Honour Judge D Pugsley
Statutes: Employment Agency Act 1973
References: EAT/0831/00,
Cases Cited:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Employment

de Lasala -v- de Lasala; PC 4-Apr-1979

(Hong Kong) Where capital claims are compromised in a once-for-all court order they cannot be revisited or reissued in the absence of a substantial mistake. Capital orders are ‘once-for-all orders’. The legal effect of the order derives not from the consent of the parties but from the making of the order by the court. Lord Diplock said: ‘The [Hong Kong] Ordinance and corresponding English legislation recognised two separate ways in which financial provision may lawfully be made for parties to a marriage which has been dissolved. One is by a maintenance agreement entered into between the parties without the intervention of the court; the other is by one party obtaining a court order against the other for periodical payments or for once-and-for-all financial provision. In the event of default, a maintenance agreement is enforceable by action. A court order is enforceable by judgment summons.’ and
‘financial arrangement that are agreed upon between the parties for the purpose of receiving the approval and being made the subject of a consent order by the court, once they have been made the subject of the court order no longer depend upon the agreement of the parties as the source from which their legal effect is derived. Their legal effect is derived from the court order.’ and ‘Where a party to an action who seeks to challenge, on the ground that it was obtained by fraud or mistake, a judgment or order that finally disposes of the issues raised between the parties, the only ways of doing it that are open to him are by appeal from the judgment or order to a higher court or by bringing a fresh action to set it aside.’
Lord Diplock considered the relationship between rulings of the Board of the Privy Council and of the judicial committee of the House of Lords: ‘a decision of the House of Lords on a matter which in Hong Kong is governed by the common law by virtue of the Application of English Law Ordinance is not ipso facto binding upon a Hong Kong court although its persuasive authority must be very great, since the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, whose decisions on appeals from Hong Kong are binding on all Hong Kong courts, shares with the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords a common membership. This Board is unlikely to diverge from a decision which its members have reached in their alternative capacity, unless the decision is in a field of law in which the circumstances of the colony or its inhabitants make it inappropriate that the common law in that field should have developed on the same lines in Hong Kong as in England.
Different considerations, in their Lordships’ view, apply to decisions of the House of Lords on the interpretation of recent legislation that is common to Hong Kong and England. Here there is no question of divergent development of the law. The legislation in Hong Kong has chosen to develop that branch of the law on the same lines as it has been developed in England, and, for that purpose, to adopt the same legislation as is in force in England and falls to be interpreted according to English canons of construction. What their Lordships have already said about the common membership of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords applies a fortiori to decisions of the House of Lords on interpretation of recent English statutes that have been adopted as the law of Hong Kong. Since the House of Lords as such is not a constituent part of the judicial system of Hong Kong it may be that in juristic theory it would be more correct to say that the authority of its decision on any question of law, even the interpretation of recent common legislation can be persuasive only; but looked at realistically its decision on such a question will have the same practical effect as if they were strictly binding, and courts in Hong Kong would be well advised to treat them as being so.’

Court: PC
Date: 04-Apr-1979
Judges: Lord Diplock
Links: Bailii,
References: [1980] AC 546, [1979] UKPC 10
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Constitutional, Family

de Lasala -v- de Lasala; PC 4-Apr-1979

(Hong Kong) Where capital claims are compromised in a once-for-all court order they cannot be revisited or reissued in the absence of a substantial mistake. Capital orders are ‘once-for-all orders’. The legal effect of the order derives not from the consent of the parties but from the making of the order by the court. Lord Diplock said: ‘The [Hong Kong] Ordinance and corresponding English legislation recognised two separate ways in which financial provision may lawfully be made for parties to a marriage which has been dissolved. One is by a maintenance agreement entered into between the parties without the intervention of the court; the other is by one party obtaining a court order against the other for periodical payments or for once-and-for-all financial provision. In the event of default, a maintenance agreement is enforceable by action. A court order is enforceable by judgment summons.’ and
‘financial arrangement that are agreed upon between the parties for the purpose of receiving the approval and being made the subject of a consent order by the court, once they have been made the subject of the court order no longer depend upon the agreement of the parties as the source from which their legal effect is derived. Their legal effect is derived from the court order.’ and ‘Where a party to an action who seeks to challenge, on the ground that it was obtained by fraud or mistake, a judgment or order that finally disposes of the issues raised between the parties, the only ways of doing it that are open to him are by appeal from the judgment or order to a higher court or by bringing a fresh action to set it aside.’
Lord Diplock considered the relationship between rulings of the Board of the Privy Council and of the judicial committee of the House of Lords: ‘a decision of the House of Lords on a matter which in Hong Kong is governed by the common law by virtue of the Application of English Law Ordinance is not ipso facto binding upon a Hong Kong court although its persuasive authority must be very great, since the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, whose decisions on appeals from Hong Kong are binding on all Hong Kong courts, shares with the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords a common membership. This Board is unlikely to diverge from a decision which its members have reached in their alternative capacity, unless the decision is in a field of law in which the circumstances of the colony or its inhabitants make it inappropriate that the common law in that field should have developed on the same lines in Hong Kong as in England.
Different considerations, in their Lordships’ view, apply to decisions of the House of Lords on the interpretation of recent legislation that is common to Hong Kong and England. Here there is no question of divergent development of the law. The legislation in Hong Kong has chosen to develop that branch of the law on the same lines as it has been developed in England, and, for that purpose, to adopt the same legislation as is in force in England and falls to be interpreted according to English canons of construction. What their Lordships have already said about the common membership of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords applies a fortiori to decisions of the House of Lords on interpretation of recent English statutes that have been adopted as the law of Hong Kong. Since the House of Lords as such is not a constituent part of the judicial system of Hong Kong it may be that in juristic theory it would be more correct to say that the authority of its decision on any question of law, even the interpretation of recent common legislation can be persuasive only; but looked at realistically its decision on such a question will have the same practical effect as if they were strictly binding, and courts in Hong Kong would be well advised to treat them as being so.’

Court: PC
Date: 04-Apr-1979
Judges: Lord Diplock
Links: Bailii,
References: [1980] AC 546, [1979] UKPC 10
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Constitutional, Family

Emsland-Starke -v- Oberfinanzdirektion Munchen; ECJ 1-Apr-1993

Common Customs Tariff – Tariff headings – Amylaceous product made up of native potato starch and neutralized potato starch ester – Classification under subheading No 1108 13 00 of the Combined Nomenclature

Court: ECJ
Date: 01-Apr-1993
Links: Bailii,
References: [1993] ECR I-1857, C-256/91, [1993] EUECJ C-256/91

Leave a Comment

Filed under European

Xue -v- Secretary of State for The Home Department; Admn 31-Mar-2015

Claim for unlawful immigration detention

Court: Admn
Date: 31-Mar-2015
Judges: Elisabeth Laing DBE J
Links: Bailii,
References: [2015] EWHC 825 (Admin),

Leave a Comment

Filed under Immigration, Torts - Other

Khalif, Regina (on The Application of) -v- Isleworth Crown Court; Admn 31-Mar-2015

The defendant appealed against his conviction under the 2004 Act on his plea of guilty saying that he had been given erroneous legal advice as to section 2(4)(c).

Court: Admn
Date: 31-Mar-2015
Judges: Burnett LJ, Lewis J
Statutes: Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants) Act 2004
Links: Bailii,
References: [2015] EWHC 917 (Admin),
Cases Cited:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Crime, Immigration

The Yorkshire Insurance Company Limited -v- Archibald Donaldson Campbell; PC 23-Oct-1916

Australia

Court: PC
Date: 23-Oct-1916
Links: Bailii,
References: [1916] UKPC 87,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Commonwealth

La Corporation De La Ville De Thetford Mines -v- Amalgamated Asbestos Corporation Limited; PC 24-Jul-1916

Quebec

Court: PC
Date: 24-Jul-1916
Links: Bailii,
References: [1916] UKPC 73,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Commonwealth

Charlotte Brickles Executrix of The Estate of Isaac Brickles Deceased -v- William H. Snell; PC 25-Jul-1916

Canada – Appeal against order made on application for specific performance of contracat by the deceased for the sale of land.

Court: PC
Date: 25-Jul-1916
Links: Bailii,
References: [1916] UKPC 75, [1916] 2 AC 599

Leave a Comment

Filed under Commonwealth, Land

Rice -v- Wincanton Group Limited; NIIT 19-Mar-2015

The decision of the tribunal is that the claimant is ordered to pay costs in the sum of £750.00.

Court: NIIT
Date: 19-Mar-2015
Links: Bailii,
References: [2015] NIIT 269_14IT,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Costs, Employment, Northern Ireland

K -v- K; FD 21-Apr-2015

F and M had been involved in protracted and bitter litigation on their divorce. They had come each to seek the committal of the other for alleged perjury and otherwise, but those applications were not being pursued.
Held: The father’s remaining applications were dismissed as being attempts to relitigate and as without merit. The court went further and made a Grepe v Loam order.

Court: FD
Date: 21-Apr-2015
Judges: Sir James Munby P FD
Links: Bailii,
References: [2015] EWHC 1064 (Fam),
Cases Cited:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Children, Family

Devon & Cornwall Autistic Community Trust (T/A Spectrum) -v- Pyrah and Others; PCC 24-Sep-2012

Court: PCC
Date: 24-Sep-2012
Links: Bailii,
References: [2012] EWPCC 46,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Intellectual Property

Spectrum -v- Pyrah and Others; PCC 18-May-2012

Court: PCC
Date: 18-May-2012
Links: Bailii,
References: [2012] EWPCC 30,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Intellectual Property

Spectrum Legal Services Ltd -v- Revenue & Customs; FTTTx 12-Mar-2012

FTTTx VALUE ADDED TAX – voluntary disclosure claiming repayment of output tax wrongly charged – HMRC refusing to repay any amount in respect of tax accounted for more than 3 years before the voluntary disclosure was made – section 80(4) VATA ‘capping provisions’ – where section 80(4) applies there is no liability to make a repayment – repayment in respect of periods not covered by the ‘capping provision’ already made – no jurisdiction to consider the question of whether HMRC should make a further ex gratia payment in respect of periods covered by the ‘capping provision’ – appeal struck out

Court: FTTTx
Date: 12-Mar-2012
Links: Bailii,
References: [2012] UKFTT 191 (TC),

Leave a Comment

Filed under VAT

Zemlyanskiy -v- Russia; ECHR 13-Mar-2012

Court: ECHR
Date: 13-Mar-2012
Statutes: European Convention on Human Rights
Links: Bailii,
References: 18969/06, [2012] ECHR 541,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Human Rights

Moccia Irme SpA -v- Commission of the European Communities; ECFI 17-Dec-1996

ECJ ECSC – State aid – Individual decision refusing to authorize the grant of State aid to a steel-making undertaking – Suspension of operation of a measure – Necessary interim measures – Interest in obtaining the interim measures sought – Application dismissed. A decision of the Commission refusing authorization for the grant of State aid to a steel undertaking is negative in character. Such an undertaking cannot establish an interest in obtaining the suspension of such a decision by way of interim relief since, in the absence of a positive decision of the Commission authorizing the aid in question, the prohibition on subsidies and aid laid down by Article 4(c) of the ECSC Treaty must apply. Nor can such an undertaking establish an interest in obtaining, by way of interim relief, the reopening of the procedure for examining the aid in question, inasmuch as to reopen the procedure would not necessarily lead the Commission to adopt a positive decision which alone could permit the State in question to grant the aid to that undertaking. Moreover, a measure of that kind would not be an interim measure since it would produce the same results as those sought in the main proceedings and prejudge the decision on the merits. Finally, where the aid in question is related to a system of aid, already approved by the Commission, for the permanent closure of steelworks, to uphold an application for interim relief seeking that the Commission be required to call upon the Member State concerned to suspend payment of aid for closure to the other undertakings which have applied for it is of only apparent usefulness, inasmuch as it does not prevent the expiry of the time-limit, laid down in Decision No 3855/91, beyond which no more aid can be paid. Moreover, such a measure – amounting to ordering a Member State to suspend an aid scheme already found to be compatible with the Treaty – would manifestly be beyond the powers conferred on the Commission.

Court: ECFI
Date: 17-Dec-1996
References: T-164/96,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Commercial, European

Kemmings and Kemmings -v- Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council; CA 28-Jan-1999

Court: CA
Date: 28-Jan-1999
Links: Bailii,
References: [1999] EWCA Civ 670,
Cases Cited:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Housing

Alstom Transport -v- Eurostar International Ltd and Another (Rev 1); ChD 13-Jul-2011

The claimants challenged the award of contracts for construction of a new generation of trains to run through the Channel Trunnel.

Court: ChD
Date: 13-Jul-2011
Judges: Mann J
Links: Bailii,
References: [2011] EWHC 1828 (Ch),

Leave a Comment

Filed under Commercial, European

TZ -v- General Medical Council; Admn 17-Apr-2015

Appeal against decision of a Fitness to Practise Panel holding that the Appellant’s fitness to practise as a medical practitioner was impaired by reason of his misconduct. It directed that his name be erased from the Medical Register under section 35D of the Act. Acting as a locum at an A&E hospital attending a young female, he was alleged to have assaulted her. He said that the complainant’s evidence had been shown incorrect in several ways, and that two additional witnesses had not been made available. He asked the committee to review its own decision.
Held: ‘Given the absence of an equivalent review mechanism in the case of medical practitioners, I regard Muscat as important in its recognition of the factor that it is not in the public interest that a qualified health professional, capable of giving good service to patients, should be struck off his professional register, and that that is a factor which, in an appropriate case, can justify departure from what Smith LJ pithily described as ‘the old Ladd v Marshall straightjacket.’
. . And ‘Given the existence of the discretion in this case, the issues for the Panel on the exercise of discretion would have been; ‘i) what was the relevance of the new evidence?
ii) why had it not been called before?
iii) what significance did it have in the context of the draft findings of the Panel?
iv) what effects would its admission have on the conduct of the hearing, and in particular on
a) the need to recall witnesses
b) the length of the hearing
v) taking all matters into account, would justice be done if it were not received and heard?’

Court: Admn
Date: 17-Apr-2015
Judges: Gilbart J
Statutes: Medical Act 1983 40
Links: Bailii,
References: [2015] EWHC 1001 (Admin),
Cases Cited:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Health Professions

Maqsood -v- Mahmood and Another; CA 13-Mar-2012

The claimant appealed against refusal of her claim for damages for alleged refusal to fulfil a contract for the sale of a business.

Court: CA
Date: 13-Mar-2012
Judges: Ward, Lloyd, Jackson LJJ
Links: Bailii,
References: [2012] EWCA Civ 251,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Contract, Land

Bon Groundwork Ltd -v- Foster; CA 13-Mar-2012

Appeal against the judgment of the EAT allowing an appeal against the judgment of the Tribunal striking out certain of the claims the respondent. The claims were struck out on two bases. With respect to some of the claims, she considered that they were res judicata, having been effectively determined by Employment Judge Salter in an earlier application. As to certain other claims, she considered that they amounted to an abuse of process within the principle enunciated in Henderson v Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100.

Court: CA
Date: 13-Mar-2012
Judges: Pill, Arden, Elias LJJJ
Links: Bailii,
References: [2012] EWCA Civ 252, [2012] ICR 1027, [2012] IRLR 517

Leave a Comment

Filed under Employment

Tilson -v- Alstom Transport; CA 19-Nov-2010

The parties disputed whether the claimant agency worker was in law the employee of the respondent.
Held: The test was whether it was necessary to infer such a contract to explain the conduct of the parties (Elias LJ). The EAT were right to include that, applying the correct test, the tribunal could not have reached a different result from the one that they did.

Court: CA
Date: 19-Nov-2010
Judges: Arden, Elias, Pitchford LLJ
Links: Bailii,
References: [2010] EWCA Civ 1308, [2011] IRLR 169
Cases Cited:
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Employment

Tanfern Ltd -v- Customs and Excise; VDT 1-Apr-2005

VDT DEFAULT SURCHARGE – Reasonable excuse – Christmas shut-down blamed for non-payment – Whether reasonable excuse – No – Appeal dismissed.

Court: VDT
Date: 01-Apr-2005
Links: Bailii,
References: [2005] UKVAT V19008,

Leave a Comment

Filed under VAT

Regina -v- Bingley Magistrates Court Ex Parte Morrow; QBD 28-Apr-1994

A private prosecution was started by summons.
Held: The court accepted that justices were entitled to exercise their discretion not to issue one, a comforting re-assurance that the magistrates were not obliged to ‘rubber stamp’ the process by which a prosecution might be started. They had been right not to issue a murder summons after a civil court declaration.

Court: QBD
Date: 28-Apr-1994
Links: Times,
References:
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Magistrates

Klein -v- Commission; ECJ 22-Apr-2015

Judgment

Court: ECJ
Date: 22-Apr-2015
Links: Bailii,
References: C-120/14, [2015] EUECJ C-120/14

Leave a Comment

Filed under European

Swain -v- Information Commissioner; FTTGRC 15-Dec-2011

Court: FTTGRC
Date: 15-Dec-2011
Statutes: Freedom of Information Act 2000
Links: Bailii,
References: [2011] UKFTT EA_2011_0121 (GRC

Leave a Comment

Filed under Information

Corby Borough Council -v- Scott; CA 13-Mar-2012

Court: CA
Date: 13-Mar-2012
Judges: Lord Neuberger MR, Richards, David LJJ
Statutes: European Convention on Human Rights 8
Links: Bailii,
References: [2012] EWCA Civ 276, [2013] PTSR 141

Leave a Comment

Filed under Housing, Human Rights

Burrell -v- Micheldever Tyre Services Ltd; CA 23-May-2014

Maurice Kaye LJ considered the observations of Elias LJ in the case of Tilson v Alstom Transport and the impact of Jafri, saying: ‘However, even within the confines of the conventional approach, the Employment Appeal Tribunal can contain its application in a number of ways. First, provided that it is intellectually honest, it can be robust rather than timorous in applying what I shall now call the Jafri approach.’

Court: CA
Date: 23-May-2014
Judges: Maurice Kaye LJ
Links: Bailii,
References: [2014] EWCA Civ 716, [2014] ICR 835
Cases Cited:
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Employment

Homer -v- Sandwell Castings Ltd; CA 1995

The employee had noticed a slight leak through sand paste, which he had himself introduced to seal a gap, but had carried on working, with the result that an eruption of molten metal through the seal fell onto his foot.
Held: The claim failed because the danger ‘did not arise from any static condition of the place of work, but arose from the operation upon which the plaintiff was engaged.’

Court: CA
Date: 01-Jan-1995
Judges: Russell LJ
References: [1995] PIQR P318,
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Health and Safety, Personal Injury

Walton -v- Spectrum Investments Ltd; CA 28-Sep-2006

Boundary and right of way dispute.

Court: CA
Date: 28-Sep-2006
Links: Bailii,
References: [2006] EWCA Civ 1337,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Land

Tanfern Ltd -v- Customs and Excise; VDT 1-Apr-2005

VDT DEFAULT SURCHARGE – Reasonable excuse – Christmas shut-down blamed for non-payment – Whether reasonable excuse – No – Appeal dismissed.

Court: VDT
Date: 01-Apr-2005
Links: Bailii,
References: [2005] UKVAT V19007,

Leave a Comment

Filed under VAT

Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council -v- Bujok; CA 1989

It was not necessary first to serve an abatement notice before commencing proceedings for statutory nuisance under s99. ‘. . . It is surely repugnant to common sense that in the area of legal activity a local authority should be prosecuted by one of its tenants without first being given opportunity to remedy the consequences of a neglect to repair the dwelling that tenant occupies. In law there is no doubt that [the tenant] was entitled to commence proceedings without giving notice of the state of the dwelling to the local authority. But in every other conceivable way I regard that action as wrong. Endless trouble to many people in courts and local authority offices and much money could be saved by giving notice of disrepair which it is to be supposed a local authority would appropriately react to. If they did not, then would be the time for a tenant to exercise the right to prosecute.

Court: CA
Date: 01-Jan-1989
Judges: Watkins LJ
Statutes: Public Health Act 1936 99
References: (1989) 88 LGR 521,
Cases Cited:
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Nuisance

Watts & Co -v- Morrow; CA 30-Jul-1991

The defendant surveyor appealed an award of damages after his negligent survey of a property. The plaintiff sought damages for distress, and the cost of making good the defects. The appellant argued that he should pay or only the diminution in value of the house by reason of the existence of those defects.
Held: The correct level of damages to be awarded are for the diminution in value of the property with those faults, not the cost of repairing the faults. ‘A contract breaker is not in general liable for any distress, frustration, anxiety, displeasure, vexation, tension or aggravation which his breach of contract may cause to the innocent party. This rule is not, I think, founded on the assumption that such reactions are not foreseeable, which they surely are or may be, but on considerations of policy. But the rule is not absolute. Where the very object of a contract is to provide pleasure, relaxation, peace of mind or freedom from molestation, damages will be awarded if the fruit of the contract is not provided or if the contrary result is procured instead. If the law did not cater for this exceptional category of case it would be defective. A contract to survey the condition of a house for a prospective purchaser does not, however, fall within this exceptional category. In cases not falling within this exceptional category, damages are in my view recoverable for physical inconvenience and discomfort caused by the breach and mental suffering directly related to that inconvenience and discomfort. If those effects are foreseeably suffered during a period when defects are repaired I am prepared to accept that they sound in damages even though the cost of the repairs is not recoverable as such.’ Exceptions mayinclude ‘where the very object of the contract is to provide pleasure, relaxation, peace of mind or freedom from molestation’, but this is an ‘exceptional category’.

Court: CA
Date: 30-Jul-1991
Judges: Bingham LJ, Sir Stephen Brown LJ, Bingham LJ
Links: Gazette, Bailii,
References: [1991] 4 All ER 939, [1991] 1 WLR 1421, [1991] EWCA Civ 9
Cases Cited:
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Damages, Negligence

Duncan and Another -v- MFV Marigold Pd 145 and others; SCS 22-Aug-2006

Court: SCS
Date: 22-Aug-2006
Links: Bailii,
References: [2006] ScotCS CSOH_128,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Scotland

Hamlin -v- Hamlin; CA 1986

A plaintiff under the 1975 Act must show as against each defendant that where that defendant is out of the jurisdiction that the order for payment would be enforceable in the foreign land.

Court: CA
Date: 01-Jan-1986
Judges: Kerr LJ
Statutes: Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 10
References: [1986] Fam 11,
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Wills and Probate

Crane -v- Spectrum Services Ltd; EAT 27-Jul-2000

EAT Unfair Dismissal – Compensation.

Court: EAT
Date: 27-Jul-2000
Judges: Mr Recorder Brian Langstaff Qc
Links: EAT,
References: EAT/843/99,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Employment

Director of Public Prosecutions -v- Morrow, Geach and Thomas; QBD 13-Apr-1993

Protesters cannot obtain abortion records to support defence.

Court: QBD
Date: 13-Apr-1993
Statutes: Criminal Law Act 1967 3(1)
Links: Independent,
References: [1994] Crim LR 58,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Criminal Practice

Spectrum Computer Supplies Ltd and Another -v- Revenue & Customs; SCIT 22-Aug-2006

SCIT NATIONAL INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS – transfer of book debts to directors – whether payment in kind – no
PAYE – whether transfer of book debts is a payment – yes – appeals dismissed

Court: SCIT
Date: 22-Aug-2006
Links: Bailii,
References: [2006] UKSPC SPC00559,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Income Tax, Taxes - Other

Ebert -v- Venvill (Trustee In Bankruptcy); Woolf; Midland Bank Plc and Rabinowicz (a Solicitor); CA 5-Jul-1999

The court refused leave to appeal from the High Court. It would be absurd if, when an order was made restricting commencement of proceedings by a vexatious litigant, that the High Court should not have power to restrain by the same order also commencement of proceedings in the County Court.

Court: CA
Date: 05-Jul-1999
Judges: Lord Woolf LCJ
Statutes: Supreme Court Act 1981 41
Links: Bailii,
References: [1999] EWCA Civ 1763, [2000] Ch 484
Cases Cited:
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Litigation Practice

Morrow -v- Morrow; 1995

While it may be uncommon, the fact that a claimant stands to inherit whatever may fall into the actual death estate does not preclude an order being made under sections 10 and 2 in her favour.

Date: 01-Jan-1995
Judges: Campbell J
Statutes: Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 10 13
References: [1995] NIJB 46,
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Family, Northern Ireland, Wills and Probate

Tomana and Others -v- Council And Commission; ECFI 22-Apr-2015

Judgment

Court: ECFI
Date: 22-Apr-2015
Links: Bailii,
References: T-190/12, [2015] EUECJ T-190/12

Leave a Comment

Filed under European

Way -v- Spectrum Property Care Ltd; CA 22-Apr-2015

The appellant had been dismissed after using the company email to forward an inappropriate email in breach of the company’s policies. Later he was disciplined for making an appointment in breach of the company’s procedures. He again misused the company’s email system and was dismissed, but several others were also. The company had offered a possible amnesty for those self reporting abuse of the system. The appellant did disclose his activities, but continued, andf was eventually dismissed. He appealed now saying that warnings had not been given in good faith.
Held: The employee’s appeal succeeded.
Christopher Clake LJ said: ‘a warning given in bad faith is not, in circumstances such as these, to be taken into account in deciding whether there is, or was, sufficient reason for dismissing an employee. An employer would not be acting reasonably in taking into account such a warning when deciding whether the employee’s conduct was sufficient reason for dismissing him; and it would not be in accordance with equity or the substantial merits of the case to do so.’
A fresh tribunal would have to consider and decide wether the earlier warning had been given in bad faith.

Court: CA
Date: 22-Apr-2015
Judges: Hallett, Patten, Christopher Clarke LJJ
Statutes: Employment Rights Act 1996 98(4)
Links: Bailii,
References: [2015] EWCA Civ 381,
Cases Cited:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Employment

Hamlin -v- Great Northern Railway Co; 19-Nov-1856

A plaintiff can recover whatever damages naturally resulted from the breach of contract, but damages cannot be given ‘for the disappointment of mind occasioned by the breach of contract.’

Date: 19-Nov-1856
Judges: Pollock CB
Links: Commonlii,
References: (1856) 1 H & N 408, [1856] EngR 918, (1856) 156 ER 1261
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Contract, Damages

Swain -v- Denso Martin Ltd; CA 24-Apr-2000

Where an employer required employees to carry weights which might lead to injury, he should provide the employee concerned with some indication of when the general weight involved, and if possible the exact weight. Having carried out a risk assessment alone was not sufficient. The Regulations must be read disjunctively.

Court: CA
Date: 24-Apr-2000
Statutes: Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 (1992 No 2793)
Links: Times,
References:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Health and Safety

Invercargill City Council -v- Hamlin; PC 12-Feb-1996

(New Zealand) Seventeen years earlier the plaintiff had asked a builder to construct a house for him, but it now appeared that the foundations had been inadequate. The building company no longer being in existence, he sought damages from the local authority which had supervised the construction.
Held: A Local Authority was liable for economic losses for a negligent inspection of a house during construction. Murphy had not been followed in New Zealand and the Privy Council accepted that this was justified. The Pirelli date of physical damage had also been discarded in favour of the date of discoverability. The decision in Pirelli was unfortunate: Once it is appreciated that the loss in respect of which the plaintiff in the present case is suing is loss to his pocket, and not for physical damage to the house or foundations, then most, if not all the difficulties surrounding the limitation question fall away. The plaintiff’s loss occurs when the market value of the house is depreciated by reason of the defective foundations, and not before. If he resells the house at full value before the defect is discovered he suffers no loss. Thus in the common case the occurrence of the loss and the discovery of the loss will coincide . . But the plaintiff cannot postpone the start of the limitation period by shutting his eyes to the obvious . . . In other words the cause of action accrues when the cracks become so bad and all the defects so obvious, that any reasonable home-owner would call in an expert. Since the defects would then be obvious to a potential buyer or his expert, that marks the moment when the market value of the building is depreciated and therefore the moment when economic loss occurs. Their Lordships do not think it is possible to define the moment more accurately. The measure of the loss will then be the cost of repairs if it is reasonable to repair, or the depreciation in the market value if it is not . . . This approach avoids almost all the practical and theoretical difficulties to which the academic commentators have drawn attention and which led to the rejection of Pirelli by the Supreme Court of Canada . . . The approach is consistent with the underlying principle that a cause of action accrues when, but not before, all the elements necessary to support the plaintiff’s claim are in existence. For in the case of a latent defect in a building the element of loss or damage which is necessary to support a claim for economic loss in tort does not exist so long as the market value of the house is unaffected. Whether or not it is right to describe an undiscoverable crack as damage, it clearly cannot affect the value of the building on the market. The existence of such a crack is thus irrelevant to the cause of action . . . Whether Pirelli should still be regarded as good law in England is not for their Lordships to say. What is clear is that it is not good law in New Zealand.

Court: PC
Date: 12-Feb-1996
Judges: Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Mustill, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, Sir Michael Hardie Boys
Links: Times, Bailii,
References: 50 Con LR 105, [1996] AC 624, [1996] UKPC 56, 78 BLR 78, [1996] 1 NZLR 513, [1996] 1 All ER 756
Cases Cited:
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Commonwealth, Construction, Local Government, Negligence

Tanfern Ltd -v- Cameron-MacDonald, Cameron-MacDonald; CA 12-May-2000

The court gave detailed guidance on the application of the new procedures on civil appeals in private law cases introduced on May 2. Appeals from a County Court District Judge’s final decision in a multi-track case could now go straight to the Court of Appeal. Appeals will generally be subject to leave being obtained. An appeal should only be allowed where the decision of the lower court was ‘wrong’ or where it was unjust because of a serious procedural or other irregularity in the proceedings. It is only in an ‘exceptional’ case that a second appeal may be sanctioned. The general rule is that the decision of the appeal court on the first appeal will be the final decision. It is no longer possible to pursue a second appeal merely because the appeal is properly arguable or has a real prospect of success.
‘A final decision includes the assessment of damages or any other final decision where it is ‘made at the conclusion of part of a hearing or trial which has been split up into parts and would, if made at the conclusion of that hearing or trial, be a final decision:’ article 1(3) of the Order of 2000; it does not include a decision only on costs. This means that if a judge makes a final decision on any aspect of a claim, such as limitation, or on part of a claim which has been directed to be heard separately, this is a final decision within the meaning of this provision.’

Court: CA
Date: 12-May-2000
Judges: Brooke LJ
Statutes: Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004, Civil Procedure Rules
Links: Times, Gazette, Bailii, Bailii,
References: [2000] 1 WLR 1311, [2000] EWCA Civ 152, [2000] 2 All ER 801, [2000] EWCA Civ 3023
Cases Cited:
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Civil Procedure Rules, Litigation Practice

Grepe -v- Loam; Bulteel -v- Grepe; CA 1887

The court was asked for an order restricting the right of a group of litigants be restrained from beginning further court actions without first obtaining the court’s consent, they having been accused of issuing vexatious proceedings.
Held: The Court has the power to make an order restricting the right of a particular person to issue proceedings without the prior consent of the court, where it finds that he has made repeated and frivolous applications in an attempt to challenge an order already made between the same parties. The order stipulated that: ‘That the said Applicants or any of them be not allowed to make any further applications in these actions or either of them to this Court or to the Court below without the leave of this Court being first obtained. And if notice of any such application shall be given without such leave being obtained, the Respondents shall not be required to appear upon such application, and it shall be dismissed without being heard.’

Court: CA
Date: 01-Jan-1887
References: (1887) 37 ChD 168, (1887) 75 LJ Ch 435, (1887) 58 LT 100
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Litigation Practice

Bhupenra Krishna Ghose and Another -v- Amarendra Nath Dey and Another; PC 15-Nov-1915

(Fort William (Bengal))

Court: PC
Date: 15-Nov-1915
Links: Bailii,
References: [1915] UKPC 54,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Commonwealth

Capita ATL Pension Trustees Ltd -v- Zurkinskas; ChD 21-Dec-2010

Court: ChD
Date: 21-Dec-2010
Links: Bailii,
References: [2010] EWHC 3365 (Ch),

Leave a Comment

Filed under Employment, Financial Services

Zubal -v- Slovakia; ECHR 9-Nov-2010

Court: ECHR
Date: 09-Nov-2010
Statutes: European Convention on Human Rights
Links: Bailii,
References: 44065/06, [2010] ECHR 1773,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Human Rights

Mika Tapani Arolainen -v- Finland; ECHR 9-Nov-2010

Court: ECHR
Date: 09-Nov-2010
Statutes: European Convention on Human Rights
Links: Bailii,
References: 17532/09, [2010] ECHR 2005,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Human Rights

Pugach And Others -v- Russia; ECHR 4-Nov-2010

Court: ECHR
Date: 04-Nov-2010
Statutes: European Convention on Human Rights
Links: Bailii,
References: 31799/08, [2010] ECHR 1732,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Human Rights

Kovalchuk -v- Ukraine; ECHR 4-Nov-2010

Court: ECHR
Date: 04-Nov-2010
Statutes: European Convention on Human Rights
Links: Bailii,
References: 21958/05, [2010] ECHR 1736,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Human Rights

Samardak -v- Ukraine; ECHR 4-Nov-2010

Court: ECHR
Date: 04-Nov-2010
Statutes: European Convention on Human Rights
Links: Bailii,
References: 43109/05, [2010] ECHR 1737,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Human Rights

Sultanov -v- Russia; ECHR 4-Nov-2010

Court: ECHR
Date: 04-Nov-2010
Statutes: European Convention on Human Rights
Links: Bailii,
References: 15303/09, [2010] ECHR 1731,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Human Rights

Tarkoev And Others -v- Estonia; ECHR 4-Nov-2010

Court: ECHR
Date: 04-Nov-2010
Statutes: European Convention on Human Rights
Links: Bailii,
References: 14480/08, [2010] ECHR 1735,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Human Rights

Mckeown -v- Belfast Metropolitan College; NIIT 12-Mar-2015

The claimant is ordered to pay costs to the respondent.

Court: NIIT
Date: 12-Mar-2015
Links: Bailii,
References: [2015] NIIT 1750_13IT,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Costs, Employment, Northern Ireland

Hikmedin Yildiz -v- Turkey; ECHR 19-Oct-2006

Court: ECHR
Date: 19-Oct-2006
Statutes: European Convention on Human Rights
Links: Bailii,
References: 69124/01, [2006] ECHR 876,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Human Rights

Binotti -v- Italy (No. 2); ECHR 13-Oct-2005

ECHR Judgment (Merits) – Preliminary objection rejected (estoppel); No separate issue under Art. 6; Violation of P1-1; Just satisfaction reserved.

Court: ECHR
Date: 13-Oct-2005
Links: Worldlii, Bailii,
References: 71603/01, [2005] ECHR 712,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Human Rights

Farhad Aliyev -v- Azerbaijan; ECHR 9-Nov-2010

Court: ECHR
Date: 09-Nov-2010
Statutes: European Convention on Human Rights
Links: Bailii,
References: 37138/06, [2010] ECHR 1780,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Human Rights

Her Majestys Revenue and Customs (Decision Notice); ICO 19-Oct-2006

ICO The complainant asked the Valuation Office Agency (VOA) to provide information about both the sale price of two London properties and the dates on which they had been sold. Information on one property was not held, and that relating to the other was withheld under s.44, with the Commissioners for the Revenue and Customs Act 2005 (CRCA) and the Taxes Management Act 1970 acting as a statutory bar – VOA stated that this made it an offence for their officials to disclose information about an individual’s tax affairs without the taxpayer’s authority. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information is exempt from release, but that section 40 was more applicable to some of the information.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 44 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

Court: ICO
Date: 19-Oct-2006
Links: Bailii,
References: [2006] UKICO FS50090387,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Information

Kesyan -v- Russia; ECHR 19-Oct-2006

Court: ECHR
Date: 19-Oct-2006
Statutes: European Convention on Human Rights
Links: Bailii,
References: 36496/02, [2006] ECHR 883,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Human Rights