Education Support AllowanceCourt: UTAA
References:  UKUT 217 (AAC),
Education Support AllowanceCourt: UTAA
EAT Disability Discrimination : Justification – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Bias, misconduct and procedural irregularity
C was a consultant psychiatrist. A report by the National Clinical Assessment Service identified clinical and communication deficiencies and recommended that the C and his employing Trust agree a remediation programme to enable him to retrain for his consultant position. Such a programme was never put into effect and the employer eventually offered him a sub-consultant’s post or said that he would be given contractual notice. Meanwhile he was diagnosed as having Asperger’s Syndrome, which was agreed to be a disability. The disability was linked to the communication deficiencies but not the clinical deficiencies. In the circumstances, refusing to allow C to return to work as a consultant was not disability discrimination under section 15 Equality Act 2010 because it was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, i.e. protecting patients; nor was it a breach of the duty to make reasonable adjustments, since any reasonable adjustments relating to the Asperger’s Syndrome would not deal with the clinical deficiencies and would not therefore allow the Trust to employ him as a consultant.
In finding the Trust liable for arrears of pay under section 13 ERA 1996 the Employment Tribunal had proceeded unfairly because the C had not pursued such a claim and, although it was open to the ET to consider it, they had not given the Trust sufficient notice that they intended to consider it on the merits.
The applicant alleged, in particular, that the physical conditions of his detention in Poarta Alba and Magineni Prisons had breached his rights guaranteed by Article 3 of the Convention.Court: ECHR
EAT Transfer of Undertakings : Dismissal or Automatically Unfair Dismissal – Economic technical or organisational reason
The Employment Judge did not err in holding that dismissals of transferred employees for refusing to work in a different workplace following a transfer of an undertaking were not dismissals which entailed a ‘change in the workforce’ within the meaning of the unamended Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 Regulation 7(1)(b) and (2). Berriman v Delabole Slate Ltd  ICR 546, Alemo-Herron v Parkwood Leisure  ICR 1116 and the Collective Redundancies and Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2014 considered.
EAT Disability Discrimination : Disability Related Discrimination – Section 13(1) of the Equality Act 2010 requires actual or constructive knowledge to permit a claimant to succeed in a claim for direct disability discrimination: Gallop v Newport City Council  EWCA Civ 1583 followed. The Appellant was not permitted to resile from a concession to that effect before the Employment Tribunal. Appeal dismissed.Court: EAT
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Race Discrimination – In the case of the First Claimant, the Employment Tribunal had made (unchallenged) findings that the Respondent had not established a fair reason for the dismissal and had no reasonable grounds for the reason it had relied on. The Respondent’s arguments on appeal failed to engage with these conclusions, which undermined both its case on unfair dismissal but also on discrimination.
In the Second Claimant’s case, the Tribunal’s findings of fact in respect of the race discrimination claim were not susceptible to challenge and undermined the Respondent’s arguments in respect of the unfair dismissal case.
Generally, the Employment Tribunal had not erred in its approach to construction of a hypothetical comparator. Applying Ahsan v Watt  IRLR 243 HL, the Tribunal had been entitled to look at the Respondent’s treatment of other white employees, albeit that they were not strict comparators, in determining how a hypothetical comparator would have been treated in like circumstances.
Both liability appeals dismissed.
The mother of all three children issued an application in respect of all the children for permission to apply to revoke the placement ordersCourt: FC
SIC Patient mobility and related issues: failure to respond within statutory timescales – On 10 December 2014, solicitors acting on behalf of Ms Parkhill asked the Scottish Ambulance Service Board (the SASB) for information about patient mobility and related issues. This decision finds that the SASB failed to respond to the request within the timescale allowed by the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA). The decision also finds that the SASB failed to comply with Ms Parkhill’s requirement for review within the timescale set down by FOISA.Court: SIC
Whether a document was protected as a publication when produced under an order for discovery.Court: CA
FTTTx VAT – input tax – purchase of iPhones – full VAT invoices not obtained to support claim to input tax – various ordinary retail receipts provided instead – whether supplies actually made to the Appellant, supporting a claim for input tax – section 47(2A) VATA considered – whether adequate alternative evidence of the incurring of input tax – whether HMRC’s refusal to accept alternative evidence was reasonable – appeal dismissedCourt: FTTTx
FTTTx INCOME TAX – taxation of overseas dividends received by resident beneficiary of non-resident trust – distributions from non-UK resident companies – interpretation of legislation rewritten as part of the Tax Law Rewrite Project – s399 Income Tax (Trading and Other Income) Act 2005 – appeal allowedCourt: FTTTx
FTTTx Customs duty – tariff classification – packages comprising waterproof plastic strapwasher, steel woodscrew and (in some cases) plastic spacer for use in fixing corrugated roofing panels in a waterproof way – whether the essential character of the packs conferred by the strapwashers (either alone or, where relevant, in combination with the spacers) – held no individual component or components confer such character – GIR Rule 3(c) therefore applies to classify the packs under the tariff heading occurring last in numerical order – appeal dismissedCourt: FTTTx
FTTTx VAT – alterations to protected buildings – reconstruction of detached garage at the same time as of reconstruction of house – whether garage part of protected building; whether earlier works constituted a substantial reconstruction.Court: FTTTx
Where a youth was seventeen at the date of conviction, but eighteen when sentenced, a sentence to a detention and training centre took effect as that, and was not to be converted into a sentence to detention in a young offender institution. The Act would only come into effect in such a case where he was being re-sentenced.Court: CACD
EXCISE DUTIES – Excise Duties (Personal Reliefs) Order 1992 – Community travellers entering UK with large quantity if cigarettes – seizure of goods and vehicle – whether review decision following refusal to restore unreasonableCourt: Excs
FTTTx EXCISE DUTY – revocation of the appellant’s registration under Warehousekeepers and Owners of Warehoused Goods Regulations 1999 – whether for ‘reasonable cause’ – appeal dismissedCourt: FTTTx
When a person gives a promise or an assurance to another, intending that he should act on it by entering into a contract, and he does act on it by entering into the contract, it is binding.
Lord Denning MR said of a collateral warranty: ‘Looking at the cases once more, as we have done so often, it seems to me that if a representation is made in the course of dealings for a contract for the very purpose of inducing the other party to act upon it, and actually inducing him to act upon it, by entering into the contract, that is prima facie ground for inferring that it was intended as a warranty. It is not necessary to speak of it as being collateral. Suffice it that it was intended to be acted upon and was in fact acted on. But the maker of the representation can rebut this inference if he can show that it really was an innocent misrepresentation, in that he was in fact innocent of fault in making it, and that it would not be reasonable in the circumstances for him to be bound by it.’
VAT – default surcharge – whether penalties proportionate – yes – whether reasonable excuse – appeal allowed in partCourt: FTTTx
The claimants sought leave to appeal against rejection of their request made to the Deputy Adjudicator for the rectification of the title to land they claimed title to, but which was registered to the respondent neighbour.Court: ChD
IPO The patent application relates to a golf putter having a measurement scale and sighting means to estimate the distance to the hole. The examiner had objected that new subject matter had been added contrary to section 76, that the invention lacked inventive step in the light of four prior specifications and that it was excluded from patentability. The hearing officer considered the added subject matter issue, decided at the hearing new subject matter had been added and accepted a form of claim with the added subject matter removed, for consideration of the other issues. He found the resulting claim to lack inventive step in the light of the prior art. With the claim before him invalidated he was unable to make a determination as to the excluded matter point but considered that as long as any eventual claim was distinguished from the prior art by physical features it should not be excluded. The patent application was remitted to the examiner for further processing.Court: IPO
The pursuer alleged negligence by his solicitor in their negotiation of missives.Court: SCS
EAT Practice and Procedure – Case management – Disability Discrimination – Disability – At an adjourned CMD the Chairman refused the employers’ application for leave to call their own psychiatric expert on the issue of disability. The claim was said to be worth nearly £100,000; the Claimant’s solicitors had obtained their own expert;- although they had invited the employers to agree joint instruction, they did so at a time when the only disability alleged was ‘back injury’.
Held that, although the grounds on which a case management decision of the ET could be successfully appealed were very restricted, these grounds were made out. The employers had acted reasonably; they were not guilty of delay; there was no risk that their obtaining their own report would delay the substantive hearing. The Chairman failed to take into account the importance of the overriding objective to deal with cases justly and on an equal footing and had reached a decision which no reasonable Tribunal could reach.
Appeal against sentences for false imprisonment – two shopkeepers taking law into own hands.Court: CACD
UTAA Appeal ALLOWED to the extent that the order disqualifying AH from acting as a Transport Manager for an indefinite period is quashed and a disqualification from acting as a Transport Manager for a period of 4 years is substituted.Court: UTAA
Directions – Employment Support Allowance claimCourt: UTAA
UTAA Appeal against the decision allowed. At the time of the claim for income support and that of the decision refusing it the appellant had a right to reside as the family member of a worker. She was accordingly, not a ‘person from abroad’ so as to have an applicable amount of £Nil.Court: UTAA
UTAA Other Current Benefits : Carer’s Allowance/Invalid Care Allowance – The appeal is dismissed. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal made on 1 August 2013 at Newton Abbot under Ref: SC129/13/01073 did not involve the making of a material error of law.Court: UTAA
UTAA Housing and Council Tax Benefits : Payments That Are Eligible for HB – The Secretary of State’s appeal is allowed.
The decision of the Greenock First-tier Tribunal of 8 October 2013 is set aside.
That decision is remade as follows:
The decision of Inverclyde Council of 14 March 2013 is confirmed.
Plaintiff, having delivered a replication to several pleas, concluding to the country as to each plea but traversing one with a special inducement, added the similiters, made up and delivered the issue, and gave notice of trial. Defendant struck out the similiters, and gave notice thereof to plaintiff, But did not deliver a rejoinder or notice of his intetition to rejoin. Afterwards defendant craved oyer of an indenture mentioned in the special inducement, and delivered a rejoinder with a demurrer to the replication containing that inducement, and a similiter as to the rest; and also gave notice that he should not appear on the trial, but should move to set aside any trial bad. Plaintiff proceeded to trial, and obtained a verdict, defendant not appearing. The Court set asidethe verdict and trial, with costs.Date: 25-Nov-1844
UTAA Transport : Traffic Commissioner Cases – Failure to meet statement of intent when applying for an operator’s licence; unlawful use of operator discs; maintenance; good repute; professional competence; revocation; disqualificationCourt: UTAA
Tribunal’s decision set aside, because it was improperly constituted for a case about reduced earnings allowance.Court: UTAA
A warrant of attorney was attested by an attorney introduced by the plaintiff, and who had on one former occasion acted professionally for the plaintiff, and who afterwards acted as the plaintiff’s attorney in entering up judgment and issuing
execution upon the warrant of atttorney : The court set it aside.- In such a case, the court will not impose upon the defendant the terms of bringing no action.
A guardian to an infant having a considerable sum of money in his hands, that
was raised out of the infant’s estate, lays out £2500 in a purchase taken in the name of IS for the benefit of the infant, if, when he came of age, he should agree thereto, and allow the trustees that money upon account. The infant dies under age. The question was whether the heir of the infant should have this estate, or whether it should be looked on as a security for £2500, and go to the executors and administrators of the infant ? As precedents for the heir were cited the cases of Palmer and Allicot,(1) and Dennis and Badd (Eq. Ca. Ab. 261, pl. 1; Ch Ca 156, SC), where a guardian buys in a mortgage on the infant’s estate, and takes an assignment of it in the names of trustees.
The Court inclined to the heir, but referred this to be stated as a case by the Master. And in this case the court held, that where a person entitled to a share of an intestate’s estate dies before distribution, and within the year, there was an interest vested, and that his share should go to his executor or administrator.
In this case also the Court was of opinion, that where there is a brother of the whole blood to the intestate, and a sister of the half blood, the sister should have but half a share.
UTAA Transport : Traffic Commissioner Cases – Application for standard international licence; delay in nominating a Transport Manager; the ability of the nominated Transport Manager to exercise continuous and effective management.Court: UTAA
Action sur la case sur assumpsit de estoier al agard de J. S. fuit resolve in cest case per totam Curiam, que mutual promise de estoier al agard de tiel homes est bon a liera eux d’estoier accordant a ceo sans ascun argent due al temps del’ promise, et Dodridge dit, que in cest case si le arbitrator agard, que un del’ parties paiera argent, & que le auter faire auter chose que ceo nest bon agard, quare de cest opinion.Date: 01-Jan-1676