Salmon -v- Castlebeck Care (Teesdale) Ltd and Others; EAT 10-Dec-2014

EAT Transfer of Undertakings – Unfair Dismissal – The Claimant was dismissed prior to the transfer of the undertaking in which she worked. An appeal against that Decision was held by the Transferee. The outcome of the appeal was that it was successful. The Employment Tribunal held that the decision taken on the appeal hearing could not be effective as such unless and until there was (a) a decision to reinstate the employee, as well as to allow the appeal and (b) this had been communicated to the employee, but that neither had occurred.
Held: There was no need for an express decision as to reinstatement to be taken; now was communication relevant for the purposes of giving effect to the revival of a contract of employment following a successful appeal against an earlier dismissal.
Observations made about the desirability of Notices of Appeal being more concise and better focussed.

Court: EAT
Date: 10-Dec-2014
Judges: Langstaff P J
Links: Bailii,
References: [2014] UKEAT 0304_14_1012,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Employment

Flat 7 Cecily Court Cambridge Way – Stroud : Midland : Birmingham; LVT 7-May-2014

LVT Service Charges

Court: LVT
Date: 07-May-2014
Links: Bailii,
References: [2014] EWLVT CHI_LV_SVC_23UF_0

Leave a Comment

Filed under Landlord and Tenant

Sony Computer Entertainment Europe Limited; ICO 24-Jan-2013

Monetary Penalty Notice

Court: ICO
Date: 24-Jan-2013
Links: Bailii,
References: [2013] UKICO 2013-17,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Information

Essex County Council and Another -v- Pardoe; EAT 7-Feb-2014

EAT Unfair Dismissal : Reason for Dismissal Including Substantial Other – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Disposal of appeal including remission
The Employment Tribunal failed to direct itself correctly on the approach it was to adopt when determining a dismissal for misconduct and the ET misapplied the correct test in material respects. The EAT refused to take the decision itself following Morgan v Electrolux Ltd (1991) ICR 369. The EAT remitted the case to a differently constituted Tribunal for determination.

Court: EAT
Date: 07-Feb-2014
Judges: Supperstone
Links: Bailii,
References: [2014] UKEAT 0417_13_0702,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Employment

Shivers -v- Moohan and Another (T/A Bradley Construction); NIIT 10-Oct-2013

NIIT (A) The claimant’s holiday pay claim is well-founded and it is ordered that the respondent shall pay to the claimant the sum of £450 in respect of holiday pay. (5 days accrued but not taken at £90 per day).
(B) The claimant’s claim for notice pay is well-founded and it is ordered that the respondent shall pay to the claimant the sum of £3408 in respect of notice pay.
(C) The claimant’s redundancy pay claim against the respondent is well-founded and it is declared that the respondent is liable to make a redundancy payment of £8550 to the claimant.

Court: NIIT
Date: 10-Oct-2013
Links: Bailii,
References: [2013] NIIT 1578_13IT,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Employment, Northern Ireland

Mahmoudi, Regina (on The Application of) -v- London Borough of Lewisham and Another; CA 6-Feb-2014

This case is concerned with the circumstances in which a disabled person may be entitled to housing benefit in relation to a short period of time before moving into a dwelling.

Court: CA
Date: 06-Feb-2014
Judges: Maurice Kay, Elias, Tomlinson LJJ
Statutes: Housing Benefit Regulations 2006 7(8)
Links: Bailii,
References: [2014] EWCA Civ 284,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Benefits

Masih, Regina (on The Application of) -v- Yousaf; CA 6-Feb-2014

Appeal against refusal to set aside possession order made under assured shorthold tenancy.

Court: CA
Date: 06-Feb-2014
Judges: Hallett, Davis, Floyd LJJ
Statutes: Housing Act 1988 8
Links: Bailii,
References: [2014] EWCA Civ 234,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Housing

Y -v- Z; FD 28-Feb-2014

The mother applied to court for permission to disclose to the police the fact, as alleged, that the Father had lied in documents filed at court.

Court: FD
Date: 28-Feb-2014
Judges: Bodey J
Links: Bailii,
References: [2014] EWHC 650 (Fam),

Leave a Comment

Filed under Children

Worbey and Another -v- Elliott; SCS 6-Feb-2014

‘the pursuers seek an accounting by the defender of his intromissions with the receipts obtained by him from two social networking applications (‘apps’), and payment of such sum as may be found to be due to them following that accounting. In the alternative, they seek payment of a sum estimated to represent the sum due to them.’

Court: SCS
Date: 06-Feb-2014
Judges: Lord Tyre
Links: Bailii,
References: [2014] ScotCS CSOH_19,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Damages, Intellectual Property, Scotland

Walker & Son (Hauliers) Ltd -v- Environment Agency; CACD 6-Feb-2014

Court: CACD
Date: 06-Feb-2014
Judges: The Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, Mr Justice Simon, Mr Justice Irwin
Statutes: Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2007 38(1)(a)
Links: Bailii, WLRD,
References: [2014] EWCA Crim 100, [2014] WLR(D) 49, [2014] PTSR 929

Leave a Comment

Filed under Crime, Environment

Newland Shipping & Forwarding Ltd -v- Toba Trading Fzc; ComC 6-Feb-2014

Application for relief from sanctions

Court: ComC
Date: 06-Feb-2014
Judges: Hamblen J
Links: Bailii,
References: [2014] EWHC 210 (Comm),

Leave a Comment

Filed under Litigation Practice

Taylor -v- Burton and Another; CA 6-Feb-2014

Order on costs after settlement of principal action.

Court: CA
Date: 06-Feb-2014
Judges: Rimer, Ryder LJJ
Links: Bailii,
References: [2014] EWCA Civ 63,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Costs

Peter Joseph Crowley (Patent); IPO 27-Sep-2013

Industrial application – The invention related to a series of bags connected to form a vertical conveyer which rotates over rollers. Bags on the descending side of the conveyer are filled with water, causing the conveyer to rotate as the water-filled bags fall under gravity. Bags on the ascending side of the conveyer are empty, because a compression roller at the bottom of the conveyer squeezes water out of each water-filled bag as it reaches the bottom of its descent. A system of valves and ducts allegedly carries this water to the top of the conveyer where it fills the next empty bag which has just reached the top of its ascent. The invention was alleged to generate an energy surplus without any energy input. The hearing officer found that the invention operated in a manner clearly contrary to well-established physical laws and therefore was not capable of industrial application. He therefore refused the application.

Court: IPO
Date: 27-Sep-2013
Judges: Mr B Micklewright
Statutes: Patents Act 1977 1(1)(c) 14(3)
Links: Bailii,
References: [2013] UKIntelP o38913, GB0819309.6

Leave a Comment

Filed under Intellectual Property

Trail Riders Fellowship and Others -v- Powys County Council; Admn 17-Oct-2013

The applicants challenged decisions of the Council to make a traffic regulation order over each of two byways in the county. The Council was both the traffic and highway authority for the county. These orders had the effect of prohibiting the use of the byways by motor vehicles, motor cycles and horse drawn vehicles.

Court: Admn
Date: 17-Oct-2013
Judges: Cranston J
Links: Bailii,
References: [2013] EWHC 3144 (Admin),

Leave a Comment

Filed under Land, Local Government

Efenure, Regina (on The Application of) -v- Secretary of State for The Home Department; Admn 16-Oct-2013

Application for judicial review of decisions made in relation to the claimant, Ejovi Efenure, to treat him as an illegal entrant, to detain him, to certify his application for asylum as unfounded, and in relation to his student visa.

Court: Admn
Date: 16-Oct-2013
Judges: Prof Cooke
Links: Bailii,
References: [2013] EWHC 3072 (Admin),

Leave a Comment

Filed under Immigration

Fenty and Others -v- Arcadia Group Brands Ltd (T/A Topshop) and Another; ChD 31-Jul-2013

The claimant (Rihanna), a famous singer, complained that the defendant company had used her image on a T-shirt. The defendant had a licence from the photographer but not Miss Fenty.

Court: ChD
Date: 31-Jul-2013
Judges: Birss J
Links: Bailii, WLRD,
References: [2013] EWHC 2310 (Ch), [2013] WLR(D) 310
Cases Cited:
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Intellectual Property

Moloobhoy and Another -v- Kanani; CA 23-Apr-2013

The court considered a case about the interplay between CPR 11 and CPR 24.

Court: CA
Date: 23-Apr-2013
Judges: Longmore, Lloyd, Kitchin LJJ
Statutes: Civil Procedure Rules 11 24
Links: Bailii,
References: [2013] EWCA Civ 600,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Jurisdiction

Finucane, Re Judicial Review; QBNI 23-Apr-2013

Application by Geraldine Finucane for discovery of documents in the course of a judicial review application brought by her in which she challenges the decision of the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to hold ‘a review into the death of Patrick Finucane (her husband) rather than a public inquiry of the kind recommended by Judge Peter Cory.’

Court: QBNI
Date: 23-Apr-2013
Judges: Stephens J
Links: Bailii,
References: [2013] NIQB 45,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Coroners, Northern Ireland

Reczycki -v- Regional Court, Lodz, Poland; Admn 1-Mar-2013

Court: Admn
Date: 01-Mar-2013
Links: Bailii,
References: [2013] EWHC 670 (Admin),

Leave a Comment

Filed under Extradition

Mohammed -v- West London County Court; CA 30-Jan-2013

Renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review.

Court: CA
Date: 30-Jan-2013
Judges: Pill LJ
Links: Bailii,
References: [2013] EWCA Civ 207,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Judicial Review

Vlas -v- Westminster Magistrates Court; Admn 19-Dec-2012

The appellant resisted hos extradition to Romania to serve the unexpired part of a sentence of imprisonment, it being said that he had breached the terms of his release licence.

Court: Admn
Date: 19-Dec-2012
Judges: Irwin J
Links: Bailii,
References: [2012] EWHC 3985 (Admin),

Leave a Comment

Filed under Extradition

S1, T1, U1 & V1; SIAC 21-Dec-2012

(Refusal of Entry – Dismissed)

Court: SIAC
Date: 21-Dec-2012
Links: Bailii,
References: [2012] UKSIAC 106/2011_2,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Crime, Immigration

One World (GB) Ltd -v- Elite Mobile Ltd; QBD 19-Dec-2012

The parties disputed arrangements for the sale of mobile phone SIM cards.

Court: QBD
Date: 19-Dec-2012
Judges: Behrens HHJ
Links: Bailii,
References: [2012] EWHC 3706 (QB),

Leave a Comment

Filed under Contract

Draga -v- The United Kingdom; ECHR 5-Jan-2015

Court: ECHR
Date: 05-Jan-2015
Statutes: European Convention on Human Rights
Links: Bailii,
References: 33341/13 - Communicated Case, [2015] ECHR 73

Leave a Comment

Filed under Human Rights, Immigration

Stolyarova -v- Russia; ECHR 29-Jan-2015

Court: ECHR
Date: 29-Jan-2015
Judges: Isabelle Berro, P
Statutes: European Convention on Human Rights
Links: Bailii,
References: 15711/13 - Chamber Judgment, [2015] ECHR 104

Leave a Comment

Filed under Human Rights

Addenbrooke -v- Princess Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust; EAT 2-Dec-2014

EAT Unfair Dismissal : Constructive Dismissal – The Appellant contended that she had been constructively dismissed. In particular an issue arose as to whether the failure to follow the grievance procedure amounted to a fundamental breach of contract and if so had the Appellant affirmed the contract. First, there was a lack of clarity in the reasoning of the Tribunal. In particular, it was unclear whether or not the Tribunal found that the failure to follow a grievance procedure amounted to a fundamental breach of the implied term of trust and confidence amounting to a repudiation of the contract. Secondly, if the Tribunal had found such a fundamental breach, then the Tribunal had not determined whether or not the employee had affirmed the contract. If the Tribunal determined that the employee had not affirmed the contract, then the Tribunal would have to determine if the breach played a part in the decision to resign and did not do so.

Court: EAT
Date: 02-Dec-2014
Judges: Lewis J
Links: Bailii,
References: [2014] UKEAT 0265_14_0212,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Employment

Mears Ltd -v- Brockman; EAT 24-Nov-2014

EAT Unfair Dismissal : Reason for Dismissal Including Substantial Other Reason – Having made findings of fact relevant to the wrongful dismissal case before her, the Employment Judge drew on those findings in determining the unfair dismissal claim. In so doing, she substituted her own view as to whether the Claimant was guilty of the alleged misconduct for which he was dismissed rather than considering whether the Respondent had reasonable grounds for such belief. She further substituted her view as to the appropriate sanction when she found that dismissal fell outside the range of reasonable responses and that a written or final written warning would have been an appropriate sanction. In the circumstances, the conclusion that the Claimant had been unfairly dismissed was unsafe.
Appeal allowed; unfair dismissal claim remitted to a differently constituted Employment Tribunal.
On the Respondent’s application for costs under Rule 34A(2)(a) Employment Appeal Tribunal Rules 1993 (as amended), allowing that the Employment Appeal Tribunal was given a broad discretion whether to make such an award, here it was relevant that the Notice of Appeal had included a challenge on the ground of perversity that was not pursued at the hearing. Further, whilst the Respondent had succeeded on the grounds pursued, the Claimant was of limited means and might have been eligible for fee remission had he been the Appellant. In the circumstances, no costs order made.

Court: EAT
Date: 24-Nov-2014
Judges: Eady QC HHJ
Links: Bailii,
References: [2014] UKEAT 0243_14_2411,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Employment

Doran -v- Department for Work and Pensions; EAT 14-Nov-2014

EAT Disability discrimination. Duty to make reasonable adjustments. Held that no duty to make reasonable adjustments arose when the claimant was certified as unfit for any work and had given no indication of when she might be able to return to work.

Court: EAT
Date: 14-Nov-2014
Judges: Hon Lady Stacey
Links: Bailii,
References: [2014] UKEAT 0017_14_1411,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Discrimination, Employment

Devon & Cornwall Police and Crime Commissioner -v- Weavin; EAT 13-Nov-2014

EAT Unfair Dismissal: Reasonableness of Dismissal – The Claimant was dismissed by reason of (a) capability in performing his job, (b) loss of external accreditation necessary for the job and (c) absence of suitable alternative employment. The Employment Tribunal found dismissal for that (capability) reason unfair on two grounds relating to (a) only. Wrong approach under section 98 Employment Rights Act. Appeal allowed. Unfair dismissal claim dismissed.

Court: EAT
Date: 13-Nov-2014
Judges: Peter Clark HHJ
Links: Bailii,
References: [2014] UKEAT 0215_14_1311,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Employment

BGC Technology Support Services Ltd -v- Moore; EAT 5-Nov-2014

EAT Practice and Procedure: Appellate Jurisdiction/Reasons/Burns-Barke – The Employment Judge found that the Claimant had been unfairly dismissed. However, in breach of rule 62(5) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure he failed to identify the relevant principles of law. Since it was not clear how he had reached the view that the dismissal was unfair and there were indications that he may have fallen into the error of substituting his own views for those of the Respondent, the appeal was allowed and the matter remitted to a different Employment Judge.

Court: EAT
Date: 05-Nov-2014
Judges: Shanks HHJ
Links: Bailii,
References: [2014] UKEAT 0211_14_0511,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Employment

East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust -v- Sanders; EAT 17-Oct-2014

EAT Practice and Procedure – Bias, misconduct and procedural irregularity
An Employment Tribunal heard evidence and submissions on a preliminary issue of disability, and retired to consider its decision. It then researched the Internet, without prior reference to the parties, to ask a question about whether there had been no obvious prior issue between the parties (the Claimant being a litigant in person). It was unclear why it had done so, since what was found was of dubious relevance, though it may have appeared it was trying to find evidence which might favour the Claimant. Having returned into the hearing, it told the parties what it had found out. It then asked further questions, appearing to accept uncritically the accuracy and reliability of what had been discovered. It rejected an application to recuse itself, but did so in terms which, when added to those of comments made on an affidavit filed for the Appellants, indicated to the Appeal Tribunal that it had an animus toward the Appellant, not least by appearing prepared to criticise a consultant psychiatrist joint expert for not having approached his examination of the Claimant properly, when there was no evidential basis at all for this criticism.
The Employment Tribunal appeared to think it was free to conduct its own research into the facts surrounding what had happened.
Held: It should not have tried to obtain its own evidence; the role of an Employment Tribunal is accusatorial, and assisting litigants in person to give the best evidence they would wish to give to make their case should not be confused with making a case for such litigants which they have never tried to make. The Employment Tribunal here descended impermissibly into the arena, compounded that by making comments to the Employment Appeal Tribunal seeking to construct arguments (here in support of the Claimant) rather than stating facts, and appeared from what it said to be hostile to the Appellant. The appeal was allowed.
At one stage the Employment Tribunal said that what it had done by accessing the Internet had done no harm to anyone, whereas to the contrary it had exposed both parties to the costs and expense of an appeal, and significantly delayed the resolution of a case the Claimant wished to be resolved as soon as possible.
Observations made about the need for advocates before the Employment Appeal Tribunal to mark authorities to show the passages to be relied on.

Court: EAT
Date: 17-Oct-2014
Judges: Langstaff P J
Links: Bailii,
References: [2014] UKEAT 0217_14_1710,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Employment

HM Attorney General -v- Groves; EAT 14-Oct-2014

EAT Practice and Procedure: Restriction of Proceedings Order
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Restriction of proceedings order/vexatious litigant
Order restricting proceedings where habitual and persistent claims that are vexatious have been made by the Respondent without reasonable grounds.

Court: EAT
Date: 14-Oct-2014
Judges: Simler J
Statutes: Employment Tribunals Act 1996 33
Links: Bailii,
References: [2014] UKEAT 0162_14_1410,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Employment

Rabess -v- London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority; EAT 24-Sep-2014

EAT Jurisdictional Points : Claim In Time and Effective Date of Termination – The Claimant was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct. His last day of service was 24 August. His internal appeal was heard on 9 January. The internal appeal reduced the finding from gross misconduct to misconduct. Since the Claimant was already subject to a final written warning he was still dismissed but he was told that he would receive – and did receive – pay in lieu of notice. It was argued that the decision on the internal appeal changed the effective date of termination for the purposes of calculating the time limit applicable to a claim of unfair dismissal. The Employment Judge found that it did not.
Held: appeal dismissed. The decision on internal appeal did nothing to alter the effective date of termination. Gisda Cyf v Barratt [2010] ICR 1475, Robert Cort and Son Ltd v Charman [1981] ICR 816 and Fitzgerald v University of Kent at Canterbury [2004] ICR 737 considered and applied. Hawes & Curtis Ltd v Arfan [2012] ICR 1244 distinguished: in that case the decision on appeal expressly altered the date at which dismissal took effect.

Court: EAT
Date: 24-Sep-2014
Judges: David Richardson HHJ
Links: Bailii,
References: [2014] UKEAT 0029_14_2409,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Employment

Taylor -v- University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Trust; EAT 15-Aug-2014

EAT Victimisation Discrimination : Whistleblowing – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Striking-out/dismissal
Imposition of deposit
The Employment Judge struck out all but one aspect of the Claimant’s claim of public interest disclosure detriment. In respect of the sixth alleged public interest disclosure the reasons given were wrong in law; moreover it could not be said that the Claimant’s claim in respect of the sixth public interest disclosure had no reasonable prospects of success. The appeal against the striking out order was accordingly allowed.
The Employment Judge also made a deposit order in respect of the fifth alleged public interest disclosure. When the Claimant did not pay this deposit order apparently believing that it would not be enforced pending appeal another Employment Judge gave a Judgment striking out not merely the claim relating to the fifth disclosure but (erroneously) the whole claim. Later the Employment Judge erroneously refused to review his Judgment (as he had power to do – see Sodexho Ltd v Gibbons [2005] ICR 1647).
The order striking out the whole of the claim was apparently made on the erroneous basis that the deposit order was the only remaining ‘live’ claim. The Judgment had to be set aside as a consequence of the appeal against the striking out order being allowed. The matter would be remitted with a view to a fresh deposit order being made. This would also give the Claimant to apply afresh for a review.

Court: EAT
Date: 15-Aug-2014
Judges: David Richardson HHJ
Links: Bailii,
References: [2014] UKEAT 0082_14_1508,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Employment

Taylor -v- University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Trust; EAT 15-Aug-2014

Victimisation Discrimination : Whistleblowing – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Striking-out/dismissal
Imposition of deposit
The Employment Judge struck out all but one aspect of the Claimant’s claim of public interest disclosure detriment. In respect of the sixth alleged public interest disclosure the reasons given were wrong in law; moreover it could not be said that the Claimant’s claim in respect of the sixth public interest disclosure had no reasonable prospects of success. The appeal against the striking out order was accordingly allowed.
The Employment Judge also made a deposit order in respect of the fifth alleged public interest disclosure. When the Claimant did not pay this deposit order apparently believing that it would not be enforced pending appeal another Employment Judge gave a Judgment striking out not merely the claim relating to the fifth disclosure but (erroneously) the whole claim. Later the Employment Judge erroneously refused to review his Judgment (as he had power to do – see Sodexho Ltd v Gibbons [2005] ICR 1647).
The order striking out the whole of the claim was apparently made on the erroneous basis that the deposit order was the only remaining ‘live’ claim. The Judgment had to be set aside as a consequence of the appeal against the striking out order being allowed. The matter would be remitted with a view to a fresh deposit order being made. This would also give the Claimant to apply afresh for a review.

Court: EAT
Date: 15-Aug-2014
Judges: David Richardson HHJ
Links: Bailii, Bailii,
References: [2014] UKEAT 0039_14_1508, [2014] UKEAT 0040_14_1508

Leave a Comment

Filed under Employment

Onyx Financial Advisors Ltd -v- Shah; EAT 26-Aug-2014

EAT Practice and Procedure : Costs
The Respondent, having successfully resisted the Claimant’s claim, applied by letter for a hearing to deal with the question whether there should be an award of costs. The letter made it plain that there was further information and argument which the Respondent wished to present to the Employment Tribunal. The Employment Tribunal not only refused the application for a hearing but also the application for costs, saying there was ‘no prospect of the Tribunal (following a hearing or otherwise) making an order for costs’.
Held: Appeal allowed. The Employment Tribunal, having refused to order a hearing, was wrong to refuse the application for costs peremptorily. It was required to give the Respondent a fair opportunity to put forward its argument before determining the application; and its reasons were in any event insufficient to address the application.

Court: EAT
Date: 26-Aug-2014
Judges: Richardson HHJ
Links: Bailii,
References: [2014] UKEAT 0109_14_2608,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Employment

Gbidi -v- Edwards and Another; EAT 22-Aug-2014

EAT Jurisdictional Points : Extension of Time: Just and Equitable
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Postponement or stay
The Employment Judge refused an application to bring proceedings for race discrimination against a new Respondent. He did not, however, consider how and to what extent that respondent was prejudiced by delay. There was potentially important material on that point. Appeal allowed. Question whether it was just and equitable to extend time remitted for rehearing.
The Employment Judge stayed the proceedings pending a determination of conduct proceedings by the Nursing and Midwifery Council. It was doubtful whether there was any real purpose in a stay, given the different issues in the two sets of proceedings. However, the Nursing and Midwifery Council proceedings had now been determined in any event. The order imposing a stay was revoked only because it made the stay conditional on a determination by a particular Committee, and named the wrong Committee.

Court: EAT
Date: 22-Aug-2014
Judges: David Richardson HHJ
Links: Bailii,
References: [2014] UKEAT 0146_14_2208,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Employment

Zinda -v- Ark Schools; EAT 14-Nov-2014

EAT Practice and Procedure : Compromise – A compromise agreement containing a term (clause 5(a)) that: ‘The Employer agrees not directly or indirectly to publish or otherwise make any statement in respect of you which is intended to or might reasonably be expected to damage your reputation or be detrimental to or otherwise critical of you’ is not void because the employer intends to and does report the dismissal of an employee, a teacher, for gross misconduct to the Independent Safeguarding Authority as required by the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006, section 6.

Court: EAT
Date: 14-Nov-2014
Judges: Supperstone J
Statutes: Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 6
Links: Bailii,
References: [2014] UKEAT 0251_14_1411,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Employment

The Department for Work and Pensions -v- Conyers; EAT 5-Nov-2014

EAT Disability Discrimination: Disability – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Perversity – Disability – whether evidence to support finding – The Claimant had two periods of absence during the latter part of her employment. She had conceded in her witness statement and evidence that she was not a disabled person for the purposes of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 during the first period. However the Employment Judge found she was a disabled person during both periods. It was argued by the Respondent that there was no evidence of substantial adverse effects in respect of the first period capable of justifying the Employment Judge’s finding. The parties could not agree what evidence had been given during the Employment Judge’s questioning of the Claimant at the end of her evidence. The appeal was adjourned and the Employment Judge’s note obtained.
Held: there was indeed no evidence justifying the Employment Judge’s finding in respect of the first period.

Court: EAT
Date: 05-Nov-2014
Judges: David Richardson HHJ
Links: Bailii,
References: [2014] UKEAT 0375_13_0511,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Employment

Tan -v- Solihull Community Housing Ltd; EAT 23-Sep-2014

EAT Unfair Dismissal: Compensation – Mitigation of loss
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Appellate jurisdiction/reasons/Burns-Barke
Unfair dismissal compensation. Insufficient reasons to explain why (a) pension loss was reduced by 85 pc and (b) no future loss of earnings, particularly partial continuing loss was awarded.
Appeal allowed and remitted for further consideration and reasons by same Employment Judge.

Court: EAT
Date: 23-Sep-2014
Judges: Peter Clark HHJ
Links: Bailii,
References: [2014] UKEAT 0050_14_2309,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Employment

Kenyon Road Haulage Ltd -v- Kingston; EAT 2-Sep-2014

EAT Unfair Dismissal : Reasonableness of Dismissal – Procedural fairness / automatically unfair dismissal
The Respondent had dismissed the Claimant following an investigation and a disciplinary hearing. The conduct which the Respondent stated was the reason for dismissal consisted of selling scrap metal generated by work at the Respondent’s garage and dividing the money obtained among workers, including the Claimant. The Claimant stated that he had done so for years and thought that the management knew and approved. The Employment Tribunal held that the Respondent did not have a genuinely held belief that the Claimant had committed gross misconduct and had not carried out reasonable investigation. It also held that there was procedural failure, by not making clear what the allegations were.
Held: The Employment Tribunal did not err in law. It was entitled to come to its view and explained sufficiently why it had done so. Appeal dismissed

Court: EAT
Date: 02-Sep-2014
Judges: Hon Lady Stacey
Links: Bailii,
References: [2014] UKEAT 0126_14_0209,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Employment

Vernon -v- Azure Support Services Ltd and Others; EAT 11-Nov-2014

EAT Sex Discrimination – Continuing act – Direct – Comparison – The Claimant’s appeal
The Claimant was employed by the Second Respondent (R2); her employment was transferred under TUPE to the First Respondent (R1). The Third Respondent (R3) was employed by R2. He carried out harassment of the Claimant before and after the TUPE transfer. The Employment Tribunal held that R2 (which was in liquidation) was vicariously liable for R3’s acts while the Claimant was employed by R2 and that the claim in respect of R3’s acts after the transfer could not succeed because the Claimant and R3 were not in the same employment. They did not make a finding that R2’s liability had transferred to R1.
On the Claimant’s appeal it was conceded that, but for time limits, R2’s liability passed by the transfer to R1; but it was argued that time began to run from the date of the transfer and that acts of harassment which were committed subsequently could not extend that time.
Held that Sodexho v Gutridge [2009] ICR 1486 did not apply; the time provisions of the Equal Pay Act were different from those which applied to the present claims under the Equality Act. The ET had found that the harassment was an act extending over a period and that the last act was less than 3 months before the claim was lodged; and the claim in respect of harassment was not out of time. In any event the Employment Tribunal was entitled to find that it was just and equitable to extend time. Appeal allowed.
R1’s appeal
The Claimant was dismissed after she had or was accused of having some kind of relationship with one of R2’s footballers–which was forbidden. No steps were taken against the footballer. The Employment Tribunal found that the Claimant’s dismissal was on the grounds of her sex.
R1 attacked that finding on the basis that the Employment Tribunal had used the wrong comparator and had reached their decision by applying a ‘but for’ test when they should have asked themselves what was the ‘reason why’ the Clamant was dismissed. As to comparator, it was argued that the Employment Tribunal should have taken a hypothetical homosexual man in the position of the Claimant who had a relationship with a homosexual footballer.
Held. Considering B v A [2007] IRLR 576, Martin v Lancehawk (EAT/0523/03), Schofield v Stuart Kauffman (EAT 11.10.02) and Chief Constable of South Yorkshire v Vento [2001] IRLR 126 that it was not necessary for the Employment Tribunal to construct the particular hypothetical comparator proposed; they had used a sufficiently close comparator – a male in similar circumstances.
As to the second argument, there was nothing which indicates that the Employment Tribunal had applied the wrong test or the ‘but for’ test. Appeal dismissed.

Court: EAT
Date: 11-Nov-2014
Judges: Jeffrey Burke QC HHJ
Links: Bailii,
References: [2014] UKEAT 0192_13_0711,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Employment

Zitro Ip -v- OHMI – Gamepoint (Spin Bingo); ECFI 29-Jan-2015

ECJ (Judgment) Community trade mark – Application for Community figurative mark ‘SPIN BINGO’ – Earlier Community word mark ‘ZITRO SPIN BINGO’- Relative ground for refusal – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/200

Court: ECFI
Date: 29-Jan-2015
Judges: M. van der Woude (Rapporteur), P
Statutes: Regulation (EC) No 207/200 8(1)(b)
Links: Bailii,
References: T-665/13, [2015] EUECJ T-665/13, ECLI:EU:T:2015:55

Leave a Comment

Filed under European, Intellectual Property

Afolabi -v- London Borough of Barking and Dagenham; EAT 11-Dec-2014

EAT Jurisdictional Points : 2002 Act and Pre-Action Requirements – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Costs
Statutory Grievance Procedure compliance was raised for the first time at the start of the substantive hearing by the Respondent. The Employment Tribunal allowed the point to be taken and upheld it. Permissible approach; see Glasgow v Cross; Fraser, cf. Sandwell (Elias J) obiter remarks. Appeal dismissed.
Point raised in the appeal arguable. No costs ordered in the appeal despite the Respondent’s offer not to enforce the Employment Tribunal costs award if the appeal is withdrawn.

Court: EAT
Date: 11-Dec-2014
Judges: Peter Clark HHJ
Links: Bailii,
References: [2014] UKEAT 0309_14_1112,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Employment

Blackrock -v- OHIM (So What Do I Do With My Money); ECFI 29-Jan-2015

ECJ (Judgment) Community trade mark – Application for the Community word mark SO WHAT DO I DO WITH MY MONEY – Mark consisting of an advertising slogan – Absolute ground for refusal – No distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

Court: ECFI
Date: 29-Jan-2015
Judges: G. Berardis (Rapporteur), P
Statutes: Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 7(1)(b)
Links: Bailii,
References: T-609/13, [2015] EUECJ T-609/13, ECLI:EU:T:2015:54

Leave a Comment

Filed under European, Intellectual Property

Blackrock -v- OHIM (Investing For A New World); ECFI 29-Jan-2015

(Judgment) Community trade mark – Application for the Community word mark INVESTING FOR A NEW WORLD – Mark consisting of an advertising slogan – Absolute ground for refusal – No distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

Court: ECFI
Date: 29-Jan-2015
Judges: G. Berardis (Rapporteur), P
Links: Bailii,
References: T-59/14, [2015] EUECJ T-59/14, ECLI:EU:T:2015:56

Leave a Comment

Filed under European, Intellectual Property

Bowers and Another -v- National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence; EAT 21-Oct-2014

EAT Practice and Procedure – Appeal challenged the asserted failure of an Employment Judge to recognise or exercise a discretion to extend time for seeking Written Reasons for a Judgment delivered orally. The correspondence from the Employment Judge, viewed fairly, demonstrated that he had recognised that discretion to extend time existed, and exercised it against the Claimant.
Further challenges to the exercise of the discretion to extend time, on the basis of misdirection in law and Wednesbury unreasonableness, also failed.

Court: EAT
Date: 21-Oct-2014
Judges: Simler J
Links: Bailii,
References: [2014] UKEAT 0173_14_2110,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Employment

Burdett -v- Aviva Employment Services Ltd; EAT 14-Nov-2014

Unfair Dismissal – Conduct – Section 98(2)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996
In a case where the Claimant had committed (admitted) assaults in the workplace because of his disability (he suffers from a paranoid schizophrenic illness), the ET found that the Respondent had dismissed him because of his having committed acts of gross misconduct and that it had reasonable grounds for its belief in this regard given the Claimant’s admission. The admission was, however, limited to the acts in question; not to actual culpability. The ET’s reasons did not demonstrate engagement with the issue of blameworthiness on the Claimant’s part; whether he had in fact wilfully or grossly negligently engaged in the conduct in question (Sandwell & West Birmingham Hospitals NHS Trust v Westwood UKEAT/0032/09/LA) and, in the circumstances of this case, that amounted to an error of law (Eastland Homes Partnership Ltd v Cunningham UKEAT/0272/13/MC).
Further, the ET’s reasons suggested that it had fallen into the error identified by the EAT (Langstaff P presiding) in Brito-Bapabulle v Ealing NHS Trust UKEAT0358/12/1406; apparently assuming that dismissal will necessarily fall within the range of reasonable responses in a gross misconduct case. There was no indication that the ET had found that this was such a heinous case as to allow of no explanation or mitigation. That being so, it was the ET’s function to consider whether there were mitigating circumstances that might take dismissal in this case outside the range of reasonable responses. Its apparent failure to do so rendered its conclusion unsafe.
Discrimination Arising from Disability – Section 15 Equality Act 2010
Having identified the legitimate aim as being adherence to appropriate standards of conduct in the workplace, the ET failed to demonstrate that it had properly scrutinised the means chosen by the Respondent to achieve that aim (i.e. the dismissal of the Claimant), Hardys and Hansons plc v Lax [2005] IRLR 726, CA. There was only limited consideration of the impact upon the Claimant and no critical evaluation of the possible alternative means apparently open to the Respondent (in particular, home-working). Furthermore, the justification identified by the ET (which was retributive rather than preventative) did not seem to engage with the Respondent’s legitimate aim and, to the extent that it found that there was a risk of relapse even if the Claimant continued on his medication, its finding as to future risk lacked evidential basis. In the circumstances, the ET’s conclusion on the discrimination arising from disability claim could not be upheld.
Outcome
Appeal allowed. Parties afforded the opportunity to make further representations as to disposal.

Court: EAT
Date: 14-Nov-2014
Judges: Eady QC HHJ
Statutes: Employment Rights Act 1996 98(2)(b)
Links: Bailii,
References: [2014] UKEAT 0439_13_1411,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Employment

Lldy Alexandria Ltd (Formerly Loch Lomond Distillery Company Ltd) -v- Unite The Union and Another; EAT 30-Apr-2014

EAT Transfer of Undertakings – TUPE Regulations 2006: reg 13(2).
The first respondent decided to outsource part of its activities to the second respondent. The claimant is a Trade Union, representing the workers affected by the transfer. It claimed that TUPE reg 13(2) was breached in that not all of the reasons for the decision to transfer were provided to it. The claimant had been in discussion with the first respondent about a pay rise. No agreement had been reached and the claimant asserted that the first respondent decided on the transfer because of the dispute, and because the managing director had stated that if no agreement was reached he would outsource the work. Further and in any event the information given to the claimant was not given long enough before the transfer to enable consultation between the claimant and the first respondent. The claimant sought a declaration and award of compensation under TUPE reg 12. The ET made the declaration on both counts and adjourned the question of remedy to a later hearing.
The first respondent appealed arguing that the ET had erred in law by deciding that the first respondent had a duty to consult, as provided for in reg 13 (6), despite no such argument being before it; that it erred in law in deciding that the first respondent had decided on the transfer due to the dispute or due to the managing director’s words; that it erred in law in deciding that the information provided was not provided long enough before the transfer to enable consultation. The second respondent supported the appeal.
The claimant argued that the ET was entitled to reach its decisions.
Held: The ET did not decide that the first respondent had a duty to consult under reg 13(6), that regulation not being engaged. The ET was entitled to find that the dispute and the intention expressed by the managing director were reasons for the decision. It was entitled to find that the reasons given did not include all of the reasons. The ET was entitled to find that the information was not provided long enough before the transfer to enable consultation between the claimant and the first respondent. Appeal refused.

Court: EAT
Date: 30-Apr-2014
Judges: Lady Stacey Hon
Links: Bailii,
References: [2014] UKEAT 0002_14_3004,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Employment

Old -v- Palace Fields Primary Academy; EAT 17-Oct-2014

EAT Unfair Dismissal – Reasonableness of dismissal
Conduct unfair dismissal. Claim dismissed by the Employment Tribunal. Proper approach to two areas of potential procedural irregularity; disclosure to the Claimant of witness statements obtained during investigation and disciplinary panel reliance on minutes of meetings between the Claimant and Head Teacher which she was told would not form part of panel’s deliberations. Appeal allowed and case remitted.
Application by Appellant for court fees of £400 and £1200. The Respondent ordered to pay £600, based on Appellant’s degree of success in appeal and the Respondent’s opportunity to compromise it.

Court: EAT
Date: 17-Oct-2014
Judges: Peter Clarke HHJ
Links: Bailii,
References: [2014] UKEAT 0085_14_1710,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Employment

Greenland -v- Secretary of State for Justice; EAT 28-Jan-2015

EAT Race Discrimination: Indirect – This is an appeal against a decision of the employment tribunal dismissing a claim for indirect discrimination. The case concerned the remuneration paid to different categories of members of the Parole Board. For a period between November 2009 and 1 April 2014, the Secretary of State determined that retired judges serving as members of the Parole Board and who chaired oral hearings were to be paid a higher fee than non-judicial members who chaired certain oral hearings. All the retired judges were white. The Appellant, who was a non-judicial member of the Parole Board, was black. He contended that the fixing of a higher fee for the retired judges constituted indirect discrimination as it amounted to a practice which put persons who shared his protected characteristic (race) at a particular disadvantage as compared with persons who did not share that characteristic. The employment tribunal found that the practice did not fall within section 19 of the Equality Act 2010 as the Appellant was the only black non-judicial member appointed to chair oral hearings and the Appellant had not demonstrated that there was any other person sharing the Appellant’s protected characteristic whom the practice put, or would put, at a particular disadvantage. Further, the tribunal decided that there were material differences between the circumstances of the cases of retired judges and non-judicial members. Furthermore, the tribunal considered that, in any event, the practice of paying an increased fee to retired judges serving as members of the Parole Board was objectively justified in the particular circumstances of the case.
On the first issue, the determination by the Secretary of State to pay a different, and lower, fee to retired judges serving as members of the Parole Board put, or would put, a non-judicial member sharing the protected characteristic of the Appellant at a particular disadvantage when compared with persons not sharing that characteristic. The question was whether there was a non-judicial member of the Parole Board (not whether there was a non-judicial member appointed to chair) who shared the Appellant’s protected characteristic at the material time. The Tribunal did not address that issue. In any event, however, the tribunal were entitled to find on the facts that there were material differences between the circumstances of the retired judges and the non-judicial members. Only the former were eligible to sit on cases involving prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment and the work that the retired judges did, and the qualifications and skills they had, were materially different from those of the non-judicial members. The tribunal were also entitled to find that the increase in remuneration for retired judges was objectively justified as it was both an appropriate and necessary means of achieving the legitimate aim of reducing the backlog of oral hearings involving prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment and imprisonment for public protection.

Court: EAT
Date: 28-Jan-2015
Judges: Lewis J
Links: Bailii,
References: [2015] UKEAT 0323_14_2801,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Employment

Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and Warwick Dc -v- OB and JS and JS (CTB); UTAA 19-Dec-2012

Housing and council tax benefits – occupation of the home, two homes and temporary absence.

Court: UTAA
Date: 19-Dec-2012
Links: Bailii,
References: [2012] UKUT 489 (AAC),

Leave a Comment

Filed under Benefits

JN -v- Secretary of State for Defence (AFCS); UTAA 12-Dec-2012

War pensions and armed forces compensation – Armed Forces Compensation Scheme

Court: UTAA
Date: 12-Dec-2012
Links: Bailii,
References: [2012] UKUT 479 (AAC),

Leave a Comment

Filed under Armed Forces, Benefits

Queen Mary University of London -v- Osonnaya; CA 15-Nov-2012

The appellant appealed against the striking out of her appeal. She had been employed by the respondents as a result of arrangements made by a third party, but the employment was terminated after the appellant had brought proceedings against her and the third party alleging frauds.
Held: The appeal failed: ‘having looked at the massive volume of papers in this case, that Kenneth Parker J was plainly entitled to take the view that he did that the appeal should be struck out. There had been inordinate and inexcusable delay in its prosecution. Where a default judgment had been obtained so many years before and the appellate processes are clear and available to people, there can be no excuse for the failure of this appellant to have progressed the matter.’

Court: CA
Date: 15-Nov-2012
Judges: Sir John Thomas P QBD, Moses, Black LJJ
Links: Bailii,
References: [2012] EWCA Civ 1858,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Employment, Litigation Practice

Flat 41 Welsby Court Eaton Rise – Ealing : London; LVT 15-Nov-2012

LVT Service Charges

Court: LVT
Date: 15-Nov-2012
Links: Bailii,
References: [2012] EWLVT LON_LV_SVC_00AJ_0

Leave a Comment

Filed under Landlord and Tenant

John Curley -v- The Secretary of State (IB); UTAA 31-Oct-2012

Incapacity benefits

Court: UTAA
Date: 31-Oct-2012
Links: Bailii,
References: [2012] UKUT 430 (AAC),

Leave a Comment

Filed under Benefits

DM -v- Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (IB); UTAA 23-Oct-2012

Incapacity benefits – incapable of work

Court: UTAA
Date: 23-Oct-2012
Links: Bailii,
References: [2012] UKUT 488 (AAC),

Leave a Comment

Filed under Benefits

Performing Right Society Ltd -v- B4U Network (Europe) Ltd; ChD 22-Oct-2012

Court: ChD
Date: 22-Oct-2012
Judges: Vos J
Links: Bailii,
References: [2012] EWHC 3010 (Ch), [2013] FSR 19, [2013] Bus LR 664
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Contract, Equity, Intellectual Property

Gillies -v- Black Horse Ltd; Misc 19-Dec-2011

Appeal against allocation of matter to small claims track.

Court: Misc
Date: 19-Dec-2011
Judges: Kay QC HHJ
Links: Bailii,
References: [2011] EW Misc 20,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Civil Procedure Rules

Kanagaratnam And Others -v- Belgium; ECHR 13-Dec-2011

The applicants alleged in particular that their detention at the detention center for illegal immigrants for deportation to the Congo, a country through which they had passed, was in violation of Article 3 and Article 5-1(f) the Convention

Court: ECHR
Date: 13-Dec-2011
Judges: Jociene P
Statutes: European Convention on Human Rights
Links: Bailii,
References: 15297/09 - HEJUD, [2011] ECHR 2420, (2012) 55 EHRR 26

Leave a Comment

Filed under Human Rights, Immigration, Torts - Other

Vellutini And Michel -v- France; ECHR 6-Oct-2011

The applicants complained that their conviction by the criminal courts for public defamation of a citizen charged with a public mandate would undermine their freedoms of expression and of association.

Court: ECHR
Date: 06-Oct-2011
Judges: Dean Spielmann, P
Statutes: European Convention on Human Rights 10 11
Links: Bailii,
References: 32820/09 (French text), [2011] ECHR 2273

Leave a Comment

Filed under Human Rights

Mamere -v- France; ECHR 7-Nov-2006

The claimant complained of having been accused of ‘aggravated deception’ after stating that France and its agricultural produce had been affected by radioactive fallout from Chernobyl.

Court: ECHR
Date: 07-Nov-2006
Judges: Andras Baka, P
Statutes: European Convention on Human Rights 10
Links: Bailii,
References: 12697/03 - Chamber Judgment, [2011] ECHR 2424, (2009) 49 EHRR 39

Leave a Comment

Filed under Human Rights

Denekamp -v- Denekamp; CA 8-Dec-2005

The claimant sought leave to appeal against an order striking out his claim, a civil restrain order and dismissal of his claim for the defendant’s legal team be debarred from acting, being, he said, in contempt.
Held: Leave was refused: ‘I am in no doubt at all that these defendants are after all these years of fruitless litigation entitled to some peace of mind and some halt to the ceaseless pursuit by Mr Denekamp of his misconceived complaints against them. Far from the judge being wrong he was in my judgment obviously right. The way he floods me with paper confirms the view that the deluge must stop. This is an utterly hopeless application which must be dismissed. ‘

Court: CA
Date: 08-Dec-2005
Judges: Ward LJ
Links: Bailii,
References: [2005] EWCA Civ 1477,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Litigation Practice

Howlett Marine Services -v- AEEU; EAT 6-Mar-1998

Court: EAT
Date: 06-Mar-1998
Links: Bailii,
References: [1998] UKEAT 253_98_0603,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Employment

Din and Another -v- London Borough of Wandsworth; HL 25-Mar-1982

Costs Judgment

Court: HL
Date: 25-Mar-1982
Judges: Lord Wilberforce, Lord Fraser of Tullybelton, Lord Russell of Killowen, Lord Lowry, Lord Bridge of Harwich
Links: Bailii,
References: [1982] 1 WLR 418,
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Costs, Housing

Monte Developments Ltd -v- Court Management Consultants Ltd and Others; ChD 29-Nov-2010

Court: ChD
Date: 29-Nov-2010
Judges: Floyd J
Statutes: Insolvency Act 1986 Sch B1
Links: Bailii,
References: [2010] EWHC 3071 (Ch),

Leave a Comment

Filed under Insolvency

Cambridgeshire Constabulary (Decision Notice); ICO 29-Nov-2010

ICO The complainant requested disclosure of any comments or complaints made to the Constabulary, and any response provided or action taken regarding its policing of a protest at KuDos Pharmaceuticals in Cambridge. The Constabulary replied that it held no information in respect of this request. The complainant went on to provide copies of correspondence falling within the scope of his own request. During the Commissioner’s investigation the Constabulary explained that it was unable to locate any information during the searches it had undertaken and relied on section 12(2) of the Act with regard to further searching. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Constabulary was correct in its application of section 12(2) although in not informing the complainant of this application it breached section 17(5). The Constabulary is also in breach of section 16(1) in not providing advice and assistance following its refusal under section 12(2).
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 12 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 16 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld

Court: ICO
Date: 29-Nov-2010
Links: Bailii,
References: [2010] UKICO FS50313525,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Information

AA113252009 (Unreported); AIT 29-Nov-2010

Court: AIT
Date: 29-Nov-2010
Links: Bailii,
References: [2010] UKAITUR AA113252009,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Immigration

IA105202010 (Unreported); AIT 29-Nov-2010

Court: AIT
Date: 29-Nov-2010
Links: Bailii,
References: [2010] UKAITUR IA105202010),

Leave a Comment

Filed under Immigration

IA184682009 (Unreported); AIT 29-Nov-2010

Court: AIT
Date: 29-Nov-2010
Links: Bailii,
References: [2010] UKAITUR IA184682009,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Immigration

IA195492008 (Unreported); AIT 29-Nov-2010

Court: AIT
Date: 29-Nov-2010
Links: Bailii,
References: [2010] UKAITUR IA195492008,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Immigration

IA364062009 (Unreported); AIT 29-Nov-2010

Court: AIT
Date: 29-Nov-2010
Links: Bailii,
References: [2010] UKAITUR IA364062009,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Immigration

Halal786 (Trade Mark: Opposition); IPO 29-Nov-2010

Court: IPO
Date: 29-Nov-2010
Links: Bailii,
References: [2010] UKIntelP o41010,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Intellectual Property

IM176552005 (Unreported); AIT 25-Sep-2006

Court: AIT
Date: 25-Sep-2006
Links: Bailii,
References: [2006] UKAITUR IM176552005,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Immigration

HX639722003 (Unreported); AIT 8-Dec-2005

Court: AIT
Date: 08-Dec-2005
Links: Bailii,
References: [2005] UKAITUR HX639722003,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Immigration

IM044782005 (Unreported); AIT 8-Dec-2005

Court: AIT
Date: 08-Dec-2005
Links: Bailii,
References: [2005] UKAITUR IM044782005,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Immigration

HX244052003 (Unreported); AIT 8-Dec-2005

Court: AIT
Date: 08-Dec-2005
Links: Bailii,
References: [2005] UKAITUR HX244052003,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Immigration

AS534512003 (Unreported); AIT 8-Dec-2005

Court: AIT
Date: 08-Dec-2005
Links: Bailii,
References: [2005] UKAITUR AS534512003,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Immigration

IM133842005 (Unreported); AIT 8-Dec-2005

Court: AIT
Date: 08-Dec-2005
Links: Bailii,
References: [2005] UKAITUR IM133842005,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Immigration

AS074302004 (Unreported); AIT 8-Dec-2005

Court: AIT
Date: 08-Dec-2005
Links: Bailii,
References: [2005] UKAITUR AS074302004,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Immigration

CC001642004 (Unreported); AIT 8-Dec-2005

Court: AIT
Date: 08-Dec-2005
Links: Bailii,
References: [2005] UKAITUR CC001642004,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Immigration

AS027952005 (Unreported); AIT 8-Dec-2005

Court: AIT
Date: 08-Dec-2005
Links: Bailii,
References: [2005] UKAITUR AS027952005,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Immigration

AA058532005 (Unreported); AIT 8-Dec-2005

Court: AIT
Date: 08-Dec-2005
Links: Bailii,
References: [2005] UKAITUR AA058532005,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Immigration

HX052672004 (Unreported); AIT 8-Dec-2005

Court: AIT
Date: 08-Dec-2005
Links: Bailii,
References: [2005] UKAITUR HX052672004,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Immigration

HX001092004 (Unreported); AIT 8-Dec-2005

Court: AIT
Date: 08-Dec-2005
Links: Bailii,
References: [2005] UKAITUR HX001092004,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Immigration

AA069702005 (Unreported); AIT 8-Dec-2005

Court: AIT
Date: 08-Dec-2005
Links: Bailii,
References: [2005] UKAITUR AA069702005,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Immigration

Charalambous Portelli (Patent); IPO 11-Feb-1998

Court: IPO
Date: 11-Feb-1998
Links: Bailii,
References: [1998] UKIntelP o00398,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Intellectual Property

BSH -v- OHMI – Arcelik (Aquaperfect); ECFI 28-Jan-2015

ECJ Judgment – Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark AquaPerfect – Earlier Community word mark waterPerfect – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

Court: ECFI
Date: 28-Jan-2015
Judges: S. Papasavvas (Rapporteur), P
Links: Bailii,
References: T-123/14, [2015] EUECJ T-123/14, ECLI:EU:T:2015:52

Leave a Comment

Filed under European, Intellectual Property

Charalambous -v- Cyprus; ECHR 19-Jul-2007

Court: ECHR
Date: 19-Jul-2007
Judges: C.L. Rozakis, P
Statutes: European Convention on Human Rights
Links: Bailii,
References: 43151/04, [2007] ECHR 623,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Family, Human Rights

Nicola (Also Known As Hossan) -v- Harris (Practising As Gabriel Harris Solicitors) and Charalambous; CA 29-Jun-1998

Court: CA
Date: 29-Jun-1998
References: [1998] EWCA Civ 1110,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Legal Professions, Litigation Practice

South and East Belfast Health and Social Services Trust (Decision Notice); ICO 8-Dec-2005

ICO On 01/08/05 the complainant requested information relating to her mother’s care, and a complaint made against the Trust by herself. This information was not provided until 04/11/05, exceeding the 20 day time limit.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

Court: ICO
Date: 08-Dec-2005
Links: Bailii,
References: [2005] UKICO FS50089177,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Information

HDMCA -v- Department for Social Development (IS); NISSCS 29-Nov-2010

Income Support

Court: NISSCS
Date: 29-Nov-2010
Links: Bailii,
References: [2010] NICom 121,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Benefits, Northern Ireland

Robinson -v- Combat Stress; EAT 5-Dec-2014

EAT Unfair Dismissal: Reason for Dismissal Including Substantial Other Reason – UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Reasonableness of dismissal – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Appellate jurisdiction/reasons/Burns-Barke – The Claimant was dismissed for three matters. In one of these (probably the most serious) the investigation was seriously flawed; and a second was raised with the Claimant for the first time at the disciplinary hearing itself. The Employment Judge thought that the third was one which the Respondent was entitled to view as gross misconduct, and held the dismissal not unfair; but the evidence before the Tribunal was that the employer did not view it as sufficiently serious. Evidence was given by the Respondent that the second was serious enough to merit dismissal, but the Employment Judge did not deal with the procedural criticisms made in the ET1, nor accept that was the Respondent’s view, nor evaluate it.
Held: the Employment Judge should have applied section 98 Employment Rights Act and had regard to the actual reasons the employer had for dismissal, rather than the justifiable reasons he could have had; the actual reasons included the first matter, and needed to be viewed and evaluated as a whole and not by isolating artificially those parts in respect of which the procedure was less troubling from the whole. Remitted to a fresh Tribunal. Observations made about the proper approach where an employer actually relies on a number of distinct grounds for dismissal but an Employment Tribunal considers only some are justified (substantively or procedurally).

Court: EAT
Date: 05-Dec-2014
Judges: Langstaff P J
Links: Bailii,
References: [2014] UKEAT 0310_14_0512,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Employment

Norwich City Council (Decision Notice); ICO 29-Nov-2010

ICO The complainant made two connected requests a few days apart, requesting information about the traffic aspects of a planning consent application within a consultants’ report which Norwich City Council (Norwich) had once held. Norwich refused the request on the grounds that the information was not held. The Information Commissioner decided that the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIRs) applied. He decided that Norwich had breached Regulation 2(1)(c) in not recognising that the EIRs applied but that the information requested was not held and that the request should have been refused relying on the exception in Regulation 12(4)(a). In respect of the second request the Commissioner decided that Norwich had refused the request within the time allowed by Regulation 14(2). The time taken by Norwich to complete its review of its refusal to provide the information requested fell well within the Regulation 11(4) time limit. The Commissioner decided that Norwich had breached Regulation 14(2) in its late refusal of the first request and that Norwich should have refused the request under the exception at Regulation 12(4)(a).
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR 2.1 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 11 – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 12.4.a – Complaint Upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Partly Upheld

Court: ICO
Date: 29-Nov-2010
Links: Bailii,
References: [2010] UKICO FS50305901,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Information

Dr Lionel N Cartwright (Decision Notice); ICO 29-Nov-2010

ICO On 18 February 2010 the complainant requested that her doctor’s practice should provide her with a copy of the second component of its application for -

Court: ICO
Date: 29-Nov-2010
Links: Bailii,
References: [2010] UKICO FS50309685,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Information

Milton Keynes Council (Decision Notice); ICO 29-Nov-2010

ICO On 10 November 2008 the complainant requested that Milton Keynes Council should make all the documentation it held which related to Petsoe Wind Farm available for inspection. The council’s response to the request was piecemeal and protracted. Initially, some information was provided and some refused under section 21 and section 22 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the complainant was invited to inspect the council’s planning files. However, the complainant argued that the council was deliberately withholding information. After the Commissioner’s intervention, the council agreed to consider the request under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. It provided further information and after some negotiation, it was agreed that the complainant would be satisfied with specific emails from the accounts of individuals which the council should have provided at the time the request was made. The Commissioner is satisfied that the council has provided those requested emails which it now holds. However, the Commissioner finds that the council breached regulation 5(1), 5(2), 11(3)(a) and (b), 11(4) of the EIR.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 11 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 11 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 11 – Complaint Upheld

Court: ICO
Date: 29-Nov-2010
Statutes: Freedom of Information Act 2000 21 22
Links: Bailii,
References: [2010] UKICO FER0234572,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Information

Welding -v- Charalambous; CA 14-Dec-2009

The parties disputed ownership of a strip of land between their properties.

Court: CA
Date: 14-Dec-2009
Judges: Stanley Burnton, Ward LJJ
Links: Bailii,
References: [2009] EWCA Civ 1578,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Land

Social Security Agency Northern Ireland (Decision Notice); ICO 8-Dec-2005

ICO On 12/06/05 the complainant requested information on the SSA’s quality management processes. This information was provided on 03/08/05, exceeding the 20 working day time limit.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

Court: ICO
Date: 08-Dec-2005
Links: Bailii,
References: [2005] UKICO FAC0085364,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Information

University of Ulster (Decision Notice); ICO 8-Dec-2005

On 30/05/05 the complainant requested financial information on the University’s swimming, diving and hydrotherapy pools. This information was not provided until 07/11/05, exceeding the 20 working day time limit.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

Court: ICO
Date: 08-Dec-2005
Links: Bailii,
References: [2005] UKICO FS50093281,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Information

Claughton -v- Charalambous; 1998

What is required of the court in applying section 335A(3) is, in effect, a value judgment. The court must look at all the circumstances and conclude whether or not they are exceptional. That process, he considered, left ‘very little scope for the interference by an appellate court’. The court here found a reason to suspend an order for possession where an occupier suffered a terminal disease.

Date: 01-Jan-1998
Judges: Jonathan Parker J
Statutes: Insolvency Act 1986 335A(3)
References: [1998] BPIR 558,
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Insolvency