In re P and Q (Children: Care Proceedings: Fact Finding); FC 19-Mar-2015

The mother and her partner had accused many people of the catanic ritual abuse of her children. The children had since retracted their complaints.
Held: The complaints by the children had been prompted and manufactured by the mother’s partner and the mother. None of the allegations, after substantial and careful investigation were true. The mother and her partner had caused immense harm to both the children and the many people they had falsely accused, and had made that damage continuing by the pulication, in probablt contempt ofcourt, of many details about the case. Those persisting with the allegations were acting either maliciously or foolishly.
Pauffley J summarised her conclusions: ‘Neither child has been sexually abused by any of the following – Ricky Dearman, teachers at Christchurch Primary School Hampstead, the parents of students at that school, the priest at the adjacent church, teachers at any of the Hampstead or Highgate schools, members of the Metropolitan Police, social workers employed by the London Borough of Camden, officers of Cafcass or anyone else mentioned by Ms Draper or Mr Christie.
The children’s half brother, his father and stepmother – Will and Sarah Draper – are likewise exonerated of any illicit or abusive acts involving the children.
There was no satanic or other cult at which babies were murdered and children were sexually abused.
All of the material promulgated by Ms Draper now published on the internet is nothing other than utter nonsense.
The children’s false stories came about as the result of relentless emotional and psychological pressure as well as significant physical abuse. Torture is the most accurate way to describe what was done by Mr Christie in collaboration with Ms Draper.
Both children were assaulted by Mr Christie by being hit with a metal spoon on multiple occasions over their head and legs, by being pushed into walls, punched, pinched and kicked. Water was poured over them as they knelt semi-clothed.
The long term emotional and psychological harm of what was done to the children is incalculable. The impact of the internet campaign is likely to have the most devastating consequences for P and Q.’

Court: FC
Date: 19-Mar-2015
Judges: Pauffley J
Links: Bailiii,
References: [2015] EWFC 26,
Cases Cited:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Children, News

Viridor Waste -v- Edge; EAT 25-Mar-2015

EAT Unfair Dismissal : Reasonableness of Dismissal – DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION: Reasonable Adjustments; Exclusions/Jurisdictions
The Claimant suffered from a long standing chronic degenerative condition of his spine, particularly affecting his neck. After being absent from work for some ten months in 2011, he sought ill health retirement, which was recommended by doctors on the basis of his description to them of the symptoms from which he suffered. Within two weeks of their report, holding that the Claimant was permanently unfit for any work, he was observed displaying a range of movements without any apparent difficulty or discomfort, which appeared inconsistent to those he had been describing to those doctors, who now revised their opinion such that they held him fit for some work, albeit restricted by his underlying condition. The employer disciplined him for exaggerating his condition to the doctors, and absenting himself from work when he was fit to do some. A Tribunal held that the employer genuinely believed that he was culpable, after a reasonable investigation, and that if it had reasonable grounds for its belief dismissal would fall within the range of reasonable responses. It held however that the grounds were not reasonable. An appeal against that conclusion was allowed, on the basis that the Tribunal had taken the wrong approach – it had not asked what the grounds were upon which the employer acted, but rather determined for itself what it made of the medical evidence, and substituted its own view as to whether the Claimant had exaggerated; it made two factual errors which separately fed into its analysis; and took account of two matters which on analysis were of no logical relevance. It thought perversely that the change of view by the Doctors was ‘not an entirely different prognosis’.
Separately, the Tribunal decided that the employer had been under a duty to make reasonable adjustments in the light of the Claimant’s neck trouble, but had chosen not to do so because it thought the Claimant might be absent from work again. Accordingly, there was no proper basis for thinking that its omission to act at any stage thereafter was part of a continuing act, such that time had not expired. By deciding not to implement the adjustment when it might have done the employer was refusing to comply with its duty, such that time started running at that point. Accordingly, the claim was brought out of time unless extended. The Tribunal had not as it should have done determined if it was just and equitable to extend that time. The appeal was allowed, and the questions whether there were reasonable grounds for what had been found to be the employer’s genuine belief, whether the dismissal was wrongful, and whether time should be extended for bringing a claim in respect of the employer’s breach of its duty to make a reasonable adjustment were remitted to a fresh Tribunal.

Court: EAT
Date: 25-Mar-2015
Judges: Langstaff P J
Links: Bailii,
References: [2015] UKEAT 0393_14_2503,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Employment

10 Elvaston Place – Kensington and Chelsea : London; LVT 5-Dec-2014

LVT Service Charges

Court: LVT
Date: 05-Dec-2014
Links: Bailii,
References: [2014] EWLVT LON_LV_SVC_00AW_0

Leave a Comment

Filed under Landlord and Tenant

Smalling -v- Regina; PC 20-Mar-2001

PC Jamaica -appeal against conviction for murder – voluntariness and reliability of confession

Court: PC
Date: 20-Mar-2001
Judges: Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Hutton, Lord Millett, Sir Patrick Russell
Links: Bailii, PC, PC, PC,
References: [2001] UKPC 12, (Appeal No 45 of 2000), [2001] 4 LRC 307

Leave a Comment

Filed under Commonwealth, Crime

PF(Nigeria) -v- The Secretary of State for The Home Department; CA 25-Mar-2015

PF, a citizen of Nigeria, appealed against the determination of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) allowing the Secretary of State’s appeal against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal allowing PF’s appeal against the Secretary of State’s decision to deport him.

Court: CA
Date: 25-Mar-2015
Judges: Sullivan, Treacy LJJ, Sir Stanley Burnton
Links: Bailii,
References: [2015] EWCA Civ 251,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Immigration

Coope and Others -v- Ward and Another (Costs); CA 25-Mar-2015

Court: CA
Date: 25-Mar-2015
Links: Bailii,
References: [2015] EWCA Civ 283,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Costs

Wood -v- Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another; CA 9-Feb-2015

Court: CA
Date: 09-Feb-2015
Judges: Sullivan, Bean, King LJJ
Links: Bailii,
References: [2015] EWCA Civ 195,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Planning

CB -v- Suffolk County Council; UTAA 18-Nov-2010

Tribunal procedure and practice (including UT)

Court: UTAA
Date: 18-Nov-2010
Judges: Mr Justice Walker CP Upper Tribunal Judge Ward Judge Mark Hinchliffe, Deputy Chamber President (HESC); Judge of the Upper Tribunal.
Links: Bailii,
References: [2010] UKUT 413 (AAC),

Leave a Comment

Filed under Benefits

Zana And Others -v- Turkey; ECHR 11-Jan-2005

ECHR Judgment (Struck out of the List) – Struck out of the list (finding of a friendly settlement).

Court: ECHR
Date: 11-Jan-2005
Links: Worldlii, Bailii,
References: 51002/99, 51489/99, [2005] ECHR 10

Leave a Comment

Filed under Human Rights

H -v- Ofsted; FTTHE 27-Feb-2015

FTTHE Schedule 7: Suspension of child minders/day care registration – Suspension of registration

Court: FTTHE
Date: 27-Feb-2015
Links: Bailii,
References: [2015] UKFTT 087 (HESC),

Leave a Comment

Filed under Health Professions

Dosanjh -v- Revenue & Customs; FTTTx 21-Oct-2014

FTTTx INCOME TAX – understatement of sales and rental income – whether deliberate – quantum of assessments and penalties – assessments and penalties excessive – appeal allowed in part

Court: FTTTx
Date: 21-Oct-2014
Links: Bailii,
References: [2014] UKFTT 973 (TC),

Leave a Comment

Filed under Income Tax

Whitehead, Regina -v-; CACD 23-Jun-2006

The defendant appealed against conviction and sentence for indecent assaults on a male person.

Court: CACD
Date: 23-Jun-2006
Judges: Lord Justice Evans Lord Justice Pill Mr Justice Underhill
Links: Bailii,
References: [2006] EWCA Crim 1486,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Crime

Molin Insaat -v- Turkey; ECHR 11-Jan-2005

ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Violation of Art. 6-1; Not necessary to examine P1-1; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses partial award.

Court: ECHR
Date: 11-Jan-2005
Links: ECHR, ECHR, worldlii, Bailii,
References: 38424/97, , [2005] ECHR 4,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Human Rights

Rajala -v- OHIM; ECJ 18-Mar-2015

ECJ Judgment – Civil service – Officials – Reports procedure – Appraisal report – General assessment of performance – Consistency

Court: ECJ
Date: 18-Mar-2015
Links: Bailii,
References: F-24/14, [2015] EUECJ F-24/14

Leave a Comment

Filed under European

Purcell Bros Ltd -v- Motor Vessell Star Viking (Owners/Demise Charterers and All Persons Claiming To Be Interested In); QBNI 22-Dec-2014

Application by the defendant for release from arrest of the MV Star Viking.

Court: QBNI
Date: 22-Dec-2014
Judges: Weatherup J
Links: Bailii,
References: [2014] NIQB 137,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Northern Ireland, Transport

Ulster Bank Ltd -v- J & N Cowden Llp; QBNI 16-Oct-2014

Plaintiffs’ application for an injunction restraining the first defendant bank and the second defendants as receivers, from taking any further steps in purported furtherance of any claimed rights arising from the appointment of fixed charge receivers in respect of property including selling or offering for sale or advertising for sale or otherwise dealing with the property pending the trial of this action or further order.

Court: QBNI
Date: 16-Oct-2014
Judges: Weatherup J
Links: Bailii,
References: [2014] NIQB 138,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Northern Ireland

Maguire, Re Judicial Review; QBNI 10-Mar-2015

Court: QBNI
Date: 10-Mar-2015
Judges: Treacy J
Links: Bailii,
References: [2015] NIQB 19,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Northern Ireland, Prisons

Roberts, Re Judicial Review; QBNI 27-Feb-2015

Court: QBNI
Date: 27-Feb-2015
Judges: O'Hara J
Links: Bailii,
References: [2015] NIQB 20,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Northern Ireland, Planning

Ranza -v- Northern Ireland Housing Executive; QBNI 13-Feb-2015

Court: QBNI
Date: 13-Feb-2015
Judges: Stephens J
Links: Bailii,
References: [2015] NIQB 13,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Housing, Northern Ireland

General Municipal and Boilermakers Union -v- Henderson; EAT 13-Mar-2015

EAT Unfair Dismissal – RELIGION OR BELIEF DISCRIMINATION – HARASSMENT
1. The Employment Tribunal found that the Claimant was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct but also found that he had suffered unlawful direct discrimination and harassment on the basis of the protected characteristic of his ‘left-wing democratic socialist beliefs’ which were held to be protected beliefs. The Tribunal held that the protected beliefs formed a substantial part of the reasoning for his dismissal and were accordingly an effective cause of it. The Tribunal also found that three incidents of unwanted conduct by the GMB related to his protected beliefs were found proved, all of which had the purpose of creating an intimidating, hostile or humiliating environment for him.
2. The appeal against the finding of unfair dismissal was dismissed. Although there appears to be a tension between the conclusion that the Claimant’s dismissal was both fair and unlawfully discriminatory, provided a tribunal makes findings of fact that are supported by the evidence, correctly applies the relevant statutory test, and reaches reasoned conclusions by reference to the facts found, there is no reason in principle why such a conclusion cannot stand. The two statutory tests are different and the mere fact of these two findings does not, without more, indicate any error of law.
3. The findings of unlawful direct discrimination and harassment could not stand. There were no findings of fact or evidential basis to support them. The Tribunal made unsupported legal or factual assumptions about disputed questions of less favourable treatment on protected belief grounds. There was no analysis of the factors relevant to those conclusions and the evidential basis for reaching the conclusions was nowhere identified. There was no material from which adverse inferences could properly be made and no evidential basis for the Tribunal’s findings in this regard.
4. Further, of the three harassment incidents relied on, two were obviously trivial. The third was an ‘incident’ and not an ‘environment’. Although isolated acts may be regarded as harassment, they must reach a degree of seriousness before doing so. To conclude that the third incident was an act of unlawful harassment is to trivialise the language of the statute.
5. The Claimant’s assertions (there being nothing more than this by way of evidence identified as available but in respect of which findings were not made) that his protected beliefs were at least a significant part of the reason for the impugned treatment were not supported by any evidence and amounted to no more than unsupported speculation. It would not be open to a tribunal properly directing itself as to the law to reach any other conclusion. There is only one outcome on the evidence and the findings made by the Tribunal in this case. The Respondent’s appeal on these grounds would accordingly be upheld, and findings of no unlawful discrimination or harassment substituted.

Court: EAT
Date: 13-Mar-2015
Judges: Simler J
Links: Bailii,
References: [2015] UKEAT 0073_14_1303,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Discrimination, Employment

Stanley and Another; UTAA 10-Mar-2015

Transport : Traffic Commissioner Cases – Financial Standing. Change of Entity

Court: UTAA
Date: 10-Mar-2015
Judges: Judge M Hinchliffe, Deputy Chamber President (HESC); Judge of the Upper Tribunal.
Links: Bailii,
References: [2015] UKUT 114 (AAC),

Leave a Comment

Filed under Transport

TG -v- Secretary of State for Work and Pensions; UTAA 30-Jan-2015

Pension Credit – European Union Law : Free Movement

Court: UTAA
Date: 30-Jan-2015
Judges: Ward UTJ
Statutes: Directive 2004/38/EEC 17
Links: Bailii,
References: [2015] UKUT 50 (AAC),

Leave a Comment

Filed under Benefits, European

RE; UTAA 7-Jan-2015

Criminal Injuries Compensation : Other – application for judicial review brought with permission in which the Applicant seeks a quashing order in respect of a decision of the First-tier Tribunal whereby it confirmed a decision of the Interested party, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, that the Applicant was entitled to an award of £2,000 under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2008 in respect of sexual assaults while he was a child but was not entitled to an award in respect of a disabling mental illness.

Court: UTAA
Date: 07-Jan-2015
Judges: Upper Tribunal Judge Rowland
Statutes: Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2008
Links: Bailii,
References: [2015] UKUT 9 (AAC),

Leave a Comment

Filed under Personal Injury

Pavlou (VO) Re: 10 Paternoster Square; UTLC 18-Mar-2015

UTLC RATING – Alteration of rating list – material change of circumstances due to Occupy London protest – whether too transient to affect rental bid at AVD – relevance of actual rent concession made by landlord – analysis of rent concession – appeal allowed in part

Court: UTLC
Date: 18-Mar-2015
Judges: A J Trott FRICS
Links: Bailii,
References: [2015] UKUT 102 (LC),

Leave a Comment

Filed under Rating

VA192322013; AIT 9-Dec-2014

Appeal against refusal of visitor permit.

Court: AIT
Date: 09-Dec-2014
Judges: MacLeman UTJ
Links: Bailii,
References: [2014] UKAITUR VA192322013,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Immigration

IA377482013 & IA158622012; AIT 5-Dec-2014

Court: AIT
Date: 05-Dec-2014
Judges: Grimes DUTJ
Statutes: European Convention on Human Rights 8
Links: Bailii,
References: [2014] UKAITUR IA377482013,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Human Rights, Immigration

Barking, Havering & Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust (Undertakings); ICO 12-Jan-2015

ICO A follow up has been completed to provide an assurance that Barking, Havering & Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust has appropriately addressed the actions agreed in its undertaking signed March 2014.

Court: ICO
Date: 12-Jan-2015
Links: Bailii,
References: [2015] UKICO 2015-4,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Information

Director of Public Prosecutions -v- Nelson; PC 16-Feb-2015

Court of Appeal of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court (Antigua and Barbuda) Both prosecutor and dfeendant appealed against a decision of the remitting court to substitute a conviction for manslaughter for an original conviction for murer. The defendant had argued self defence, inconsistent with provocation, but the appellate court had made its decision on the basis of evidence of provocation.
Held: Murderous intent (of either kind) is in no sense inconsistent with the partial defence of provocation. Indeed, provocation assumes murderous intent. It only arises when the essential elements of murder are all proved, including murderous intent, and: ‘The Board is satisfied that when the whole of the summing up is examined and the passage cited by the Court of Appeal is taken in context, the judge plainly did not fall into the error supposed by that court. There was no danger that the jury might think that murderous intent negated provocation.’
The defendant argued that the judge’s direction as to provocation did not sufficiently explain to the jury that provocation means, in law, things said or done which cause the defendant to have murderous intent. As to this, the Board answered that: ‘It is certainly true that the legal concept of provocation is of provocative behaviour which leads the defendant to do as he did, that is to say to kill the deceased. In the present case, the judge’s repeated directions that the question for the jury was whether provocative behaviour led the defendant ‘to do as he did’ amply made this clear.’

Court: PC
Date: 16-Feb-2015
Judges: Lady Hale, Lord Hughes, Lord Toulson
Links: Bailii,
References: [2015] UKPC 7,
Cases Cited:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Commonwealth

Jean Mackenzie -v- The Royal Bank of Canada; PC 11-Jun-1934

Canada

Court: PC
Date: 11-Jun-1934
Links: Bailii,
References: [1934] UKPC 31,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Commonwealth

The Monarch Life Assurance Company -v- Mackenzie; PC 17-Oct-1913

Canada

Court: PC
Date: 17-Oct-1913
Links: Bailii,
References: [1913] UKPC 49,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Commonwealth

Baird -v- Hastings (T/A Hastings & Co, Solicitors); QBNI 29-May-2014

Assessment of damages

Court: QBNI
Date: 29-May-2014
Judges: Weatherup J
Links: Bailii,
References: [2014] NIQB 77,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Damages, Northern Ireland

LC (A Minor), Re Judicial Review; QBNI 23-Feb-2015

Court: QBNI
Date: 23-Feb-2015
Judges: Horner J
Links: Bailii,
References: [2015] NIQB 15,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Education, Northern Ireland

Cunningham -v- Fegan and Another; QBNI 19-Feb-2015

‘ The plaintiff applied in the county court for two orders. The first was an order for discovery by the defendants of documents containing the fee arrangements entered into between the defendants’ solicitor and the defendants’ insurance company. The second was for an order that the defendants’ notice of intention to defend should be struck out on the basis that the fee arrangement entered into between Campbell Fitzpatrick now BLM Solicitors and the defendants’ insurance company, Axa, was contrary to public policy.’

Court: QBNI
Date: 19-Feb-2015
Judges: Stephens J
Links: Bailii,
References: [2015] NIQB 14,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Costs, Legal Professions, Northern Ireland

Nese -v- Airbus Operations Ltd (Unfair Dismissal : Reason for Dismissal Including Substantial Other Reason); EAT 27-Jan-2015

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Reason for dismissal including substantial other reason
UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Reasonableness of dismissal
UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Automatically unfair reasons
VICTIMISATION DISCRIMINATION – Protected disclosure
Protected disclosures – made absent reasonable belief and good faith: the Employment Tribunal had correctly understood the case before it and reached permissible findings on the evidence. The Claimant was wrong to suggest his evidence had not been contradicted.
Reason for dismissal – automatically unfair reasons – reasonable grounds: the Employment Tribunal’s findings of fact were based on evidence before it. The Claimant’s real complaint was as to the weight the Employment Tribunal had given parts of the evidence; that was not a proper basis of challenge.

Court: EAT
Date: 27-Jan-2015
Judges: Eady QC HHJ
Links: Bailii,
References: [2015] UKEAT 0477_13_2701,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Employment

L -v- Ofsted; FTTHE 25-Feb-2015

FTTHE Schedule 7: Suspension of child minders/day care registration – Suspension of registration

Court: FTTHE
Date: 25-Feb-2015
Links: Bailii,
References: [2015] UKFTT 086 (HESC),

Leave a Comment

Filed under Health Professions

Peifer, Re Judicial Review; QBNI 6-Mar-2015

Challenge to refusal of Fair Employment Tribunal to release to him transcripts of hearings of his application.

Court: QBNI
Date: 06-Mar-2015
Judges: Treacy J
Links: Bailii,
References: [2015] NIQB 18,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Employment, Information, Northern Ireland

Thomson -v- Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust (Disability Discrimination : Disability); EAT 30-Jan-2015

EAT DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION – Disability
DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION – Reasonable adjustments
UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Reasonableness of dismissal
UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Procedural fairness/automatically unfair dismissal
UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Polkey deduction
The Claimant, Consultant Neonatologist, was dismissed for bullying colleagues. She asserted that the Respondent failed to make a reasonable adjustment in dismissing her as her admitted disability, dyslexia, made it more likely that she would engage in that type of behaviour. She also asserted that, notwithstanding her disability was identified at the Case Management Discussion as dyslexia, this should be aggregated with depression. Held that the Employment Tribunal correctly considered the claim on the basis that the disability alleged was dyslexia. Chapman v Simon [1994] IRLR 124 applied. The Claimant lost the reasonable adjustments claim on the facts. The cross-appeal from the finding of unfair dismissal is dismissed. The Employment Tribunal did not err in concluding that it was unreasonable to assign a doctor who, although of the right level, did not appear to have any training or experience in conducting such hearings to conduct and decide the outcome of the Claimant’s disciplinary hearing. He misapplied the Respondent’s disciplinary procedure to the detriment of the Claimant. It was not an error for the Employment Tribunal not to permit the doctor to be recalled to give more evidence of his experience/training in disciplinary procedures. It was a case management decision for them in the circumstances. The Employment Tribunal did not err in holding the dismissal to be unfair. The Employment Tribunal did not fail to have regard to guidance in Software 2000 Ltd v Andrews in deciding that there should be no Polkey reduction on either of the bases contended for. Nor did the Employment Tribunal err in failing to make a deduction of 100% or of a percentage greater than was made for contributory fault.

Court: EAT
Date: 30-Jan-2015
Judges: Slade J
Links: Bailii,
References: [2015] UKEAT 0218_14_3001,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Disrimination, Employment

Advanced Collection Systems Ltd -v- Gultekin (Jurisdictional Points); EAT 6-Feb-2015

EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Costs
The Claimant alleged unfair and/or wrongful dismissal, arising out of a resignation which the Employment Appeal Tribunal found had been made without any notice, and where there had been no repudiatory breach by the employer. Accordingly, the Claimant was not entitled to any award of compensation for unfair dismissal, nor for wrongful dismissal, and had no legitimate claim for moneys due in the notice period (since in breach of contract she had simply left). She withdrew her claim for notice pay during the hearing. In fact, in advance of the hearing she had benevolently been paid a sum in lieu of notice, and her full holiday pay entitlement. The Judge awarded £1,800 at the hearing because the employer had not provided a statement of terms and conditions of employment under section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and £150 by way of fee reimbursement because the Claimant had partially won her case. He declined to reconsider his decision (on the basis that section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 required the Claimant to have succeeded in a claim, or a finding of fact to have been made in her favour, before any such award could be made) saying that the withdrawal of a justified claim by a claimant amounted to a finding of fact by a Tribunal in her favour.
Held: The Claimant had no justified claim; she had lost her case; and there was no jurisdiction to make an award in respect of the admitted failure of the employer to observe section 1 Employment Rights Act 1996. Even if the claim had not been justified (rather than hopeless) a withdrawal could not be equated to a finding in her favour, which is what the section specifically required. Insofar as the policy underpinning the statute could be ascertained, in any event it was better served by the opposite interpretation to that which the Judge thought appropriate. Appeal allowed, with reimbursement of the appeal fees.

Court: EAT
Date: 06-Feb-2015
Judges: Langstaff P J
Statutes: Employment Rights Act 1996 1
Links: Bailii,
References: [2015] UKEAT 0377_14_0602,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Employment

Metroline Travel Ltd -v- Stoute (Debarred) (Disability Discrimination); EAT 26-Jan-2015

EAT DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION
The Claimant was a bus driver who suffered from Type 2 diabetes which he controlled largely by avoiding sugary drinks.
The Employment Tribunal held that he was disabled within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed the appeal on the basis that the Employment Tribunal had misapprehended the concept of disability under the Act; the statutory guidance made clear that a condition controlled by a minor alteration of a diet was not a long term condition restricting the ability of the Claimant to carry out ordinary day-to-day tasks.

Court: EAT
Date: 26-Jan-2015
Judges: Serota QC HHJ
Statutes: Equality Act 2010
Links: Bailii,
References: [2015] UKEAT 0302_14_2601,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Discrimination, Employment

The Commissioner of Taxation of New South Wales -v- Adams; PC 21-Feb-1912

Australia

Court: PC
Date: 21-Feb-1912
Links: Bailii,
References: [1912] UKPC 16,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Commonwealth

Impala Warehousing and Logistics (Shanghai) Co Ltd -v- Wanxiang Resources (Singapore) Pte Ltd; ComC 25-Mar-2015

ComC ‘This case concerns warehouse receipts, a common instrument in trade and finance, and specifically whether because of an exclusive jurisdiction clause said to have been incorporated in the receipts, the claimant warehouse company is entitled to an anti-suit injunction preventing the defendant from pursuing proceedings in the Shanghai courts which the claimant says are based on the receipts.’

Court: ComC
Date: 25-Mar-2015
Judges: Blair J
Links: Bailii,
References: [2015] EWHC 811 (Comm),

Leave a Comment

Filed under Commercial

Adams -v- The Queen; PC 4-Nov-1994

(New Zealand) The defendant had been a managing director of Equitcorp. With other directors he was concerned with the company’s investments, and established a series of other companies and banks to hide fraudulent transactions. Equitcorp became insolvent, and he was charged with conspiracy to defraud.
Held: D’s appeal against conviction failed. On a charge of conspiracy to defraud causing economic loss, it was necessary to show prejudice or actual loss to the alleged victim. Since the company was entitled to secret profits made by a director, and the transaction had been designed to hide the assets from the company, the acts impeding the discovery of the transaction could found the conspiracy to defraud allegation, and he was properly convicted. His failure as a company director to disclose information which was lawfully required from him as to his secret profit, could itself amount to a fraud.

Court: PC
Date: 04-Nov-1994
Links: Ind Summary, Gazette, Times,
References: [1995] 1 WLR 52,
Cases Cited:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Commonwealth, Company, Crime

Pora -v- Regina; PC 3-Mar-2015

Court of Appeal of New Zealand – the defendant appealed against his conviction (after two trials) for rape and murder. He said that hos confession should not have been admitted, being unreliable, and that evidence should have been admitted that another man had already been convicted of a rape on the woman on the same occasion. A psychiatrist had given expert evidence as to its reliability but had gone beyind that to say that it was unreliable.
Held: The expert witness had exceeded his power. It remained for the fact finding cort to reach such conclusions. That remained the case notwithstanding the Evidence Act 2006 of New Zealand. That Act had not operated to displaced the common law rule that forbade evidence being given as to the ultimate issue.

Court: PC
Date: 03-Mar-2015
Judges: Lord Kerr, Dame Sian Elias, Lord Reed, Lord Hughes, Lord Toulson
Links: Bailii,
References: [2015] UKPC 9,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Commonwealth, Criminal Evidence

Deangate Ltd -v- Hatley and Others (Practice and Procedure); EAT 26-Mar-2015

EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application/Claim
Three claimants completed forms of application for fee remission some days after submitting their claims on line. The Respondent argued that the ET should have rejected the claims, as it was obliged to do by rule 11 of its Rules of Procedure since the applications for remission could not be said to ‘accompany’ the claim as the rule required, and that any repeat application would then have been hopelessly out of time. The ET thus had no jurisdiction. The ET considered, and rejected this, since it thought that to send in an application within 7 days of having presented the claim was to accompany the claim with the application. If that was not so, then rule 6 allowed the ET to waive irregularity, and it was just to do so. These conclusions were not accepted on appeal: but a submission made by the Secretary of State, intervening, that to tick, online, a question asking if the claimant intended to apply for remission amounted in the context of the legislation to an unequivocal choice as between paying a fee or applying for remission, and thus was sufficient, was. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.
Observations made that it must follow from the Secretary of State’s submissions that it is sufficient to amount to accompanying a claim with an application for remission for a claim made by post or to an office to be accompanied with a statement that that is what the claimant is choosing to do.

Court: EAT
Date: 26-Mar-2015
Judges: Langstaff P J
Links: Bailii,
References: [2015] UKEAT 0389_14_2603,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Employment

Secretary of State of Business Innovation & Skills -v- Dobrucki and Others (Transfer of Undertakings: Insolvency); EAT 3-Feb-2015

EAT TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKINGS – Insolvency – RIGHTS ON INSOLVENCY
Employees were transferred from a company in administration to a former 90% shareholder who purchased its business. Three days later the business folded. All employees claimed arrears of pay, and holiday pay, three claimed for unpaid notice pay, and one for a redundancy payment. An Employment Judge found there had been a TUPE transfer, that Regulation 8(7) did not apply but that Regulations 8(1)-(6) did, and that applying Regulation 8(3) the transferor was liable for the payments for which the redundancy provisions and Part XII of the Employment Rights Act 1996 makes provision, which accordingly fell to the Secretary of State to discharge.
On the Secretary of State’s appeal,
Held: Regulation 8(3) did not apply to debts which had not accrued as such by the time of transfer. Pressure Cooler v Molloy [2012] ICR 51 was authority directly in point, supported by dicta of Elias J and Underhill P in earlier cases, binding on the Employment Judge, and was followed.

Court: EAT
Date: 03-Feb-2015
Judges: Langstaff P J
Statutes: Employment Rights Act 1996
Links: Bailii,
References: [2015] UKEAT 0505_13_0302,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Employment, Insolvency

Gondalia -v- Tesco Stores Ltd (Unfair Dismissal : Reasonableness of Dismissal); EAT 20-Jan-2015

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Reasonableness of dismissal
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Appellate jurisdiction/reasons/Burns-Barke
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Review
Dishonesty
The concept of subjective dishonesty did not mean that the Employment Judge was bound to consider the approach taken in John Lewis plc v Coyne [2001] IRLR 139, which stated that, where an issue arose as to whether conduct might be dishonest or not, that should be determined by reference to what had been said by Lord Lane LCJ in R v Ghosh [1982] QB 1053 at paragraphs 162 and 163. The issue did not arise in the instant case and did not need to be decided but it was doubtful how useful a jury direction in a criminal case was in the employment context.
Reasonableness of dismissal – Inadequacy of reasons
The Judgment overall does not say how important issues have actually been resolved. It asserts conclusions, which it adopts from the Respondent’s case and submissions, but that does not make for an adequately reasoned decision. The Written Reasons did not fulfil the criteria for a properly reasoned decision, either as set out in paragraph 62(5) of the Employment Tribunal 2013 Rules or in accordance with the familiar authorities of Meek v Birmingham City Council [1987] IRLR 250 and Greenwood v NWF Retail Ltd [2011] ICR 896. Case remitted for a complete re-hearing.
Application for review of EAT Judgment
That the appeal succeeded on the above ground did not mean it must succeed on the second ground of appeal, namely that the Employment Judge must have fallen into the error identified in Whitbread plc t/a Whitbread Medway Inns v Hall [2001] IRLR 275 and Brito-Babapulle v Ealing Hospital NHS Trust [2013] IRLR 854 of concluding that where there was an honest and genuine belief that the employee had committed an act of gross misconduct then the dismissal must be axiomatically fair. It was impossible to be confident that was the case because of the inadequacy of reasons; the factors relating to whether or not this Tribunal should review its own decisions set out at paragraph 47 of the judgment in Zinda v Governing Body of Barn Hill Community High School [2011] ICR 174 were considered.

Court: EAT
Date: 20-Jan-2015
Judges: Hand QC HHJ
Links: Bailii,
References: [2015] UKEAT 0320_14_2001,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Employment

Adamson and Others -v- The Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works; PC 15-Oct-1928

Victoria

Court: PC
Date: 15-Oct-1928
Links: Bailii,
References: [1928] UKPC 77,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Commonwealth

Su Ling -v- Goldman Sachs International; ComC 26-Mar-2015

Application for leave to amend particulars of claim.

Court: ComC
Date: 26-Mar-2015
Judges: Carr DBE J
Links: Bailii,
References: [2015] EWHC 759 (Comm),

Leave a Comment

Filed under Litigation Practice

Dorothy Roulstone -v- O L Panton (Administrator of the Estate of Olive Hinds); PC 27-Jul-1979

Cayman Islands – The Board was asked whether the beneficial interests in certain parcels of land conveyed to the appellant and another jintly on purchases were those of joint tenants so that ion the death of the co-owner intestate, the appellant became owner vy survivorship of the sole legal and beneficial interests. Ther was no suggestion of any severance.

Court: PC
Date: 27-Jul-1979
Links: Bailii,
References: [1979] UKPC 36, [1979] 1 WLR 1465

Leave a Comment

Filed under Commonwealth, Land, Trusts

Heritage Homecare Ltd -v- Mason (Disability Discrimination: Direct Disability Discrimination); EAT 14-Jan-2015

EAT Disability related discrimination
Direct disability discrimination
Compensation
Direct Disability Discrimination and Discrimination arising from Disability
After considering the judgment and the Respondent’s acceptance that there appeared to be errors as to the findings that both direct disability discrimination and discrimination arising from disability and after considering paragraph 18.3 of the Practice Direction (Employment Appeal Tribunal – Procedure) 2013 (‘the PD’), which deals with the disposal of appeals by consent, the appeal was allowed and the case remitted. The Employment Tribunal had made no findings as to knowledge of disability and there was no basis for analysing the judgment as containing a finding of constructive knowledge and so the conclusion on discrimination arising from disability was questionable. Nor was it clear what the evidential basis was for the conclusion that the Appellant had directly discriminated against the Respondent because of her disability and no clear basis for differentiating that from the finding of discrimination arising from disability.
Compensation
The Employment Tribunal’s findings of fact and reasoning do not appear to support the decision made as to loss of earnings.
Disposal
The case was remitted for a complete re-hearing before a differently constituted Employment Tribunal.

Court: EAT
Date: 14-Jan-2015
Judges: Hand QC HHJ
Links: Bailii,
References: [2015] UKEAT 0273_14_1401,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Discrimination, Employment

CRO Ports London Ltd -v- Wiltshire (Unfair Dismissal: Reasonableness of Dismissal); EAT 23-Jan-2015

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Reasonableness of dismissal
UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Contributory fault
CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT – Wrongful dismissal
Unfair Dismissal
The Employment Tribunal found that the dismissal (for a reason relating to the Claimant’s conduct) was unfair; the Respondent having failed to carry out a reasonable investigation.
The Respondent appealed against that Judgment, contending that the Employment Tribunal had erred in failing to apply correct legal test in light of the Claimant’s admissions to the Respondent during the investigation and disciplinary process, see RSPB v Croucher [1984] IRLR 425.
Held: Appeal allowed on this ground. Given that the grounds relied on by the Respondent included the admissions made by the Claimant during the internal processes, the question was whether it had carried out a reasonable investigation, tested against the range of reasonable responses of the reasonable employer. Applying Croucher, where the employer’s decision was based on admissions on the part of the employee, it was hard to see why it was not within the range of reasonable responses for it to conclude it was unnecessary to carry out further investigation. The Employment Tribunal felt further investigation would have highlighted other factors which put the Claimant’s conduct in context such that a very different view of his culpability might be taken. The difficulty was that the Employment Tribunal’s conclusions as to what that further investigation would have uncovered were derived from its own findings, on the evidence before it, not that before the Respondent. Adopting that approach, the Employment Tribunal failed to address the significance of the admissions made by the Claimant from the perspective of the Respondent at the time.
Given that failure to separate out the findings and approach relevant to the wrongful dismissal claim from the approach required for the unfair dismissal claim, the Judgment was unsafe. It could not be assumed that the Employment Tribunal would necessarily have reached same conclusion if it had applied the correct test and assessed question of fairness based on what was before the Respondent at the relevant time – including the admissions made by the Claimant – as tested against the range of reasonable responses of the reasonable employer.
As the Employment Appeal Tribunal could not simply substitute its view as to the fairness of the dismissal, the case would need to be remitted for fresh consideration.
Contributory Fault
The Employment Tribunal declined to make a reduction in the Claimant’s compensation due to contributory fault.
The Respondent appealed on the basis that the Employment Tribunal had: (i) erred in assessing the question of contributory fault by limiting consideration to whether the Claimant was blameworthy in respect of the incident when it should properly have considered questions of contribution more generally, including the Claimant’s failure to respond honestly in investigation etc; (ii) reached a perverse conclusion.
Held: It was not right to say that that the Employment Tribunal had confined its consideration only to the Claimant’s conduct in respect of the incident; paragraph 78 (particularly when read together with preceding findings) made clear it did not. The Employment Tribunal plainly had in mind the question that the Claimant’s responses in the internal investigation and disciplinary hearing might have contributed to the decision reached.
On the perversity challenge, however, allowing for the high test to be applied, the Employment Tribunal had lost sight of the significance of the Claimant’s admissions and stance in the internal process. That went to the conclusion on liability (see above) but also raised the question as to how that did not amount to contributory fault on the part of the Claimant.
As the unfair dismissal claim was to be re-heard, this point would be for the Employment Tribunal considering this case at the remitted hearing in any event.
Wrongful dismissal
The Employment Tribunal had concluded that the Claimant had been wrongfully dismissed.
The Respondent appealed on the basis that the Employment Tribunal had failed to properly direct itself as to the correct legal test and/or failed to give adequate reasons and/or reached a perverse conclusion.
Held: It was right to say there was no self-direction as to the correct legal test. It might be said that the test was obvious and did not need re-stating but the reasons were inadequate to properly explain how the Employment Tribunal had approached this task and to demonstrate that it had taken into account all relevant factors. The conclusion was not necessarily perverse. This was also a point for the Employment Tribunal on the remitted hearing of both claims.
Disposal
Appeal allowed on all grounds. Claims of unfair and wrongful dismissal remitted to a differently constituted Employment Tribunal for re-hearing.

Court: EAT
Date: 23-Jan-2015
Judges: Eady QC HHJ
Links: Bailii,
References: [2015] UKEAT 0344_14_2301,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Employment

Mackenzie (Pastoral Measure) -v- The Church Commissioners; PC 27-Jul-1979

Appeal against a privision in a pastoral scheme for the uniting of five separate benefices into one.

Court: PC
Date: 27-Jul-1979
Judges: Diplock, Edmund-Davies, Scarman LL
Links: Bailii,
References:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Ecclesiastical

Lee Chow Meng alias Koh Loh Meng alias Lim Peng Hun -v- The Public Prosecutor; PC 10-May-1979

Malaysia – The Board declined to hear the petition of appeal saying that it did not have jurisdiction to hear appeals in criminal cases from Malaysia.

Court: PC
Date: 10-May-1979
Judges: Wilberforce, Russell of Killowen, Keith of Kinkel LL
Links: Bailii,
References: [1979] UKPC 20, [1979] Crim LR 465, [1979] 1 WLR 1463

Leave a Comment

Filed under Commonwealth, Crime

Nutro UK Ltd -v- Revenue & Customs; FTTTx 21-Oct-2014

FTTTx PROCEDURE – application to strike out – rule 8(3)(b), Tribunal Procedure Rules – whether the appellant had failed to co-operate with the tribunal to such an extent that the tribunal cannot deal with the proceedings fairly and justly

Court: FTTTx
Date: 21-Oct-2014
Links: Bailii,
References: [2014] UKFTT 971 (TC),

Leave a Comment

Filed under Taxes Management

12 Dombey House Dickens Estates – Southwark : London; LVT 27-Jun-2012

LVT Service Charges

Court: LVT
Date: 27-Jun-2012
Links: Bailii,
References: [2012] EWLVT LON_LV_SVC_00BE_0

Leave a Comment

Filed under Landlord and Tenant

111 Waters Edge Dickens Heath – Solihull : Midland : Birmingham; LVT 25-Oct-2011

LVT Service Charges

Court: LVT
Date: 25-Oct-2011
Links: Bailii,
References: [2011] EWLVT BIR_LV_SVC_00CT_0

Leave a Comment

Filed under Landlord and Tenant

Silcock and Another, Regina -v-; CACD 29-Jan-2004

The defendants had been found guilty of conspiracy to deliver counterfeit notes. They now appealed against sentence and confiscation orders. The notes were high quality and denomination dollar notes, with probable total face values of many millions. The suggested motivation was terroristic in being intended to undermine fait in the US currency.
Held: There were were no sufficient disparities between the sentences to allow an appeal on that ground, and the sentences were not excessive.

Court: CACD
Date: 29-Jan-2004
Judges: Rose LJ VP CACD, Poole, David JJ
Links: Bailii,
References: [2004] EWCA Crim 408, 2004] 2 Cr App Rep (S) 61, [2004] Crim LR 493
Cases Cited:
  • Regina -v- Rose, CACD, Cited, (Gazette 17-Feb-93, (1993) 97 Cr App R 253)
  • Regina -v- Dossetter & Others, , Cited, ([1999] 2 Cr App R(S) 248)
  • Regina -v- Dickens, CACD, Cited, ([1990] 2 QB 102, Bailii, [1990] EWCA Crim 4, (1990) 154 JP 979, [1990] 2 WLR 1384, [1990] 2 All ER 626, (1990) 12 Cr App R (S) 191, (1990) 91 Cr App R 164, [1990] Crim LR 603)

Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Criminal Sentencing

Alden, Regina -v-; CACD 20-Mar-2001

Appeals against convictions at a general Court-Martial for causing grievous bodily harm with intent.

Court: CACD
Date: 20-Mar-2001
Judges: Rose LJ VP, Rougier, Sullivan JJ
Links: Bailii,
References: [2001] EWCA Crim 3041,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Armed Forces, Crime

Serife Yigit -v- Turkey; ECHR 20-Jan-2005

A complaint as to the privileging of civil over religious marriages in Turkey was found admissible.

Court: ECHR
Date: 20-Jan-2005
Links: Bailii,
References: 3976/05, [2010] ECHR 1672,
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Human Rights

Hirani, Regina -v-; CACD 11-Jun-2008

Court: CACD
Date: 11-Jun-2008
Judges: Scott Baker LJ, Burnett J, Roberts QC HHJ
Links: Bailii,
References: [2008] EWCA Crim 1463,
Cited By:
  • Mackle, Regina -v-, SC, Cited, (Bailii, [2014] UKSC 5, [2014] 1 AC 678, [2014] 2 Cr App R (S) 33, [2014] NI 292, [2014] 2 All ER 170, [2014] 2 WLR 267, [2014] Lloyd's Rep FC 253, [2014] WLR(D) 40, WLRD, Bailii Summary, UKSC 2012/0045, UKSC 2012/0044, UKSC 2012/0043, UKSC 2012/0041, SC, SC Summary)

Leave a Comment

Filed under Criminal Sentencing

London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham -v- Jastrzebski and Another; CA 21-Mar-2001

Application for permission to appeal – possession order.

Court: CA
Date: 21-Mar-2001
Judges: Chadwick LJ
Links: Bailii,
References: [2001] EWCA Civ 431,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Landlord and Tenant

Circuit Systems Ltd and Another -v- Zuken-Redac (UK) Ltd; CA 21-Mar-2001

Application for permission to appeal.

Court: CA
Date: 21-Mar-2001
Judges: Aldous, Mummery, Kay LJJ
Links: Bailii,
References: [2001] EWCA Civ 481, [2001] BLR 253
Cases Cited:
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Company

Regina -v- Dickens; CACD 11-Apr-1990

The defendant had been convicted of conspiring to import cannabis, and made subject inter alia to a confiscation order.
Held: ‘ the object of the Act is to ensure, so far as is possible, that the convicted drug trafficker is parted from the proceeds of any drug trafficking which he has carried out. The provisions are intentionally Draconian. Since the amount of those proceeds and the size of his realisable assets at the time of conviction are likely to be peculiarly within the defendant’s knowledge, it is not surprising perhaps if evidential burdens are cast upon him of a kind which are, to say the least, unusual in the area of the criminal law and this, despite the fact that the confiscation order and the penalties for failing to comply with it may be rigorous.’
However, the burden was on the Crown to prove according to the criminal standard that the defendant had benefitted from drug trafficking and what the value of his proceeds of drug trafficking was. Lord Lane CJ said: ‘It is clear . . that where the prosecution statement is not accepted by the defendant, the prosecution, if they wish to rely on any of its contents, must adduce evidence to establish them.
The judge then hears the evidence on either side and reaches his conclusion (1) as to whether the defendant has successfully rebutted any provisional assumptions under section 2; (2) as to the existence of any benefit from drug trafficking; and (3) as to the value of such benefit.’

Court: CACD
Date: 11-Apr-1990
Judges: Lord Lane LCJ, Judge, Roch JJ
Statutes: Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986
Links: Bailii,
References: [1990] 2 QB 102, [1990] EWCA Crim 4, (1990) 154 JP 979, [1990] 2 WLR 1384, [1990] 2 All ER 626, (1990) 12 Cr App R (S) 191, (1990) 91 Cr App R 164, [1990] Crim LR 603
Cases Cited:
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Criminal Practice

Esso Petroleum Co Ltd -v- Hall Russell & Co Ltd (The Esso Bernicia); HL 1989

The vessel Esso Bernicia was involved in an accident while berthing at Sullom Voe terminal under the control of tugs. The failure of a piece of equipment on board one of the tugs caused the vessel to come into contact with the jetty as a result of which both the vessel and the jetty sustained damage and the foreshore in the area of the terminal was contaminated by fuel oil. Esso paid compensation to the owners of the jetty and to crofters whose sheep had been injured by the pollution of the foreshore and sought to recover from the builders of the tug, Hall, Russell & Co., on the grounds that they had been negligent in its design and construction. Esso contended that it was entitled to be subrogated to the claims of the jetty owners and the crofters against Hall Russell in tort and could pursue those claims in its own name.
Held: Esso it could pursue the claims of the jetty owners and the crofters only in their names. Esso’s payment did not discharge Hall Russell’s liability, and for the same reason Esso could not make a claim in restitution because Hall Russell had not been enriched at its expense. An indemnifier who is subrogated to the rights of someone whom he has indemnified can only pursue those rights in the name of that person.

Court: HL
Date: 01-Jan-1989
Judges: Lord Goff, Lord Jauncey
References: [1989] AC 643, [1989] 1 All ER 37, [1989] 1 Lloyds Rep 8
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Insurance

Regina -v- Martin and White; CACD 8-Dec-1997

Court: CACD
Date: 08-Dec-1997
Links: Bailii,
References: [1997] EWCA Crim 3215, [1998] 2 Cr App R 385
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Crime

Huntington Town Council (Decision Notice); ICO 13-Jun-2006

ICO The complainant requested information contained in Counsel’s opinion which had been obtained by the Council in 2000. HTC refused to provide this information citing section 42 (Legal Professional Privilege) as the basis for its refusal. The Commissioner recognises that there are public interest arguments favouring disclosure in this case, but considers that those arguments are outweighed by the public interest in maintaining the exemption in this case.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 42 – Complaint Not upheld

Court: ICO
Date: 13-Jun-2006
Links: Bailii,
References: [2006] UKICO FS50072299,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Information

Unite The Union -v- Liverpool Victoria Banking Services Ltd and Others; CA 25-Mar-2015

‘The issue that divides the parties is as to the extent of Unite’s entitlement to commission from LV under two agreements made with LV before the merger, under which LV agreed to provide various services to the members of each union and the relevant union would, in certain circumstances, be entitled to commission.’

Court: CA
Date: 25-Mar-2015
Judges: Jackson, Briggs, Christopher Clarke LJJ
Links: Bailii,
References: [2015] EWCA Civ 285,

Leave a Comment

Filed under Contract

Tranter (T/A Dynamic Yoga) -v- Revenue & Customs; FTTTx 15-Oct-2014

FTTTx VAT – exempt supplies -supply of private tuition by an individual teacher acting independently – tuition in yoga – whether tuition in a subject ordinarily taught in a school or university – no – supplies of tuition services chargeable to VAT – Item 2, Group 6, Schedule 9 VATA 1994 – appeal dismissed

Court: FTTTx
Date: 15-Oct-2014
Links: Bailii,
References: [2014] UKFTT 959 (TC),

Leave a Comment

Filed under VAT

Techcomp Ltd -v- Revenue & Customs; FTTTx 21-Oct-2014

FTTTx VAT – input tax – MTIC.

Court: FTTTx
Date: 21-Oct-2014
Links: Bailii,
References: [2014] UKFTT 979 (TC),

Leave a Comment

Filed under VAT

Walsall MBC -v- UM; UTAA 1-Mar-2015

UTAA Housing and Council Tax Benefits : Other

Court: UTAA
Date: 01-Mar-2015
Links: Bailii,
References: [2015] UKUT 99 (AAC),

Leave a Comment

Filed under Benefits

DD -v- Secretary of State for Work and Pensions; UTAA 11-Mar-2015

UTAA Employment and support allowance – Tribunal Procedure and Practice (Including Ut) : Leave/Permission To Appeal

Court: UTAA
Date: 11-Mar-2015
Links: Bailii,
References: [2015] UKUT 116 (AAC),

Leave a Comment

Filed under Benefits

AH and VH and MH -v- Secretary of State for Work and Pensions; UTAA 4-Mar-2015

Disability Living Allowance, Attendance Allowance, Mobilit Allowance: General : Other – overstatement and recovery

Court: UTAA
Date: 04-Mar-2015
Links: Bailii,
References: [2015] UKUT 108 (AAC),

Leave a Comment

Filed under Benefits

YH -v- Secretary of State for Work and Pensions; UTAA 13-Feb-2015

UTAA Income Support and State Pension Credit : Other: Income Support : Quistclose Principle

Court: UTAA
Date: 13-Feb-2015
Links: Bailii,
References: [2015] UKUT 85 (AAC),

Leave a Comment

Filed under Benefits

RT -v- Secretary of State for Work and Pensions; UTAA 12-Feb-2015

UTAA Employment and Support Allowance : Pre 28311 WCA Activity 10: Continence

Court: UTAA
Date: 12-Feb-2015
Links: Bailii,
References: [2015] UKUT 84 (AAC),

Leave a Comment

Filed under Benefits

LM -v- London Borough of Southwark; UTAA 17-Feb-2015

UTAA Housing and Council Tax Benefits : Recovery of Overpayments

Court: UTAA
Date: 17-Feb-2015
Links: Bailii,
References: [2015] UKUT 86 (AAC),

Leave a Comment

Filed under Benefits

LC -v- Secretary of State for Work and Pensions; UTAA 26-Feb-2015

UTAA Disabiliity Living Allowance – Tribunal Procedure and Practice (Including UT) : Fair Hearing

Court: UTAA
Date: 26-Feb-2015
Links: Bailii,
References: [2015] UKUT 100 (AAC),

Leave a Comment

Filed under Benefits

DM -v- Secretary of State for Work and Pensions; UTAA 9-Feb-2015

UTAA Jobseekers Allowance : Other

Court: UTAA
Date: 09-Feb-2015
Links: Bailii,
References: [2015] UKUT 67 (AAC),

Leave a Comment

Filed under Benefits

DM -v- Secretary of State for Work and Pensions; UTAA 12-Feb-2015

Disability Living Allowance, Attendance Allowance, Mobility Allowance: General : Severe Mental Disablement

Court: UTAA
Date: 12-Feb-2015
Links: Bailii,
References: [2015] UKUT 87 (AAC),

Leave a Comment

Filed under Benefits

CC -v- Secretary of State for Work and Pensions; UTAA 5-Feb-2015

UTAA Employment and Support Allowance : Pre 28311 WCA Activity 1: Walking

Court: UTAA
Date: 05-Feb-2015
Links: Bailii,
References: [2015] UKUT 62 (AAC),

Leave a Comment

Filed under Benefits

BT -v- Secretary of State for Work and Pensions; UTAA 26-Feb-2015

UTAA Industrial Injury – Tribunal Procedure and Practice (Including Ut) : Tribunal Membership and Procedure

Court: UTAA
Date: 26-Feb-2015
Links: Bailii,
References: [2015] UKUT 98 (AAC),

Leave a Comment

Filed under Benefits

Ribeiro Sinde Monteiro -v- EEAS; ECJ 18-Mar-2015

ECJ Judgment – Public service – Staff EEAS – Official – Promotion – Articles 43 and 45, paragraph 1, of the Statute – Consideration of comparative merits of all the officials eligible for promotion – Officials proposed by service, not available EEAS officials – Consideration staff reports – Likes exclusively literal

Court: ECJ
Date: 18-Mar-2015
Links: Bailii,
References: F-51/14, [2015] EUECJ F-51/14

Leave a Comment

Filed under European

OTP Bank Nyrt -v- Magyar Allam, Magyar Allamkincstar; ECJ 19-Mar-2015

ECJ Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – State aid – Article 107(1) TFEU – Concept of ‘State aid’ – Housing aid granted prior to the accession of Hungary to the European Union to certain categories of household – Payment of the aid by credit institutions in exchange for a State guarantee – Article 108(3) TFEU – Measure not previously notified to the European Commission – Unlawfulness

Court: ECJ
Date: 19-Mar-2015
Statutes: TFEU 107(1)
Links: Bailii,
References: C-672/13, [2015] EUECJ C-672/13, ECLI:EU:C:2015:185

Leave a Comment

Filed under European

Mega Brands International -v- OHIM; ECJ 19-Mar-2015

ECJ Judgment – Appeal – Community trade mark – Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – Article 8(1)(b) – Application for registration of the Community word mark MAGNEXT – Opposition by the proprietor of the earlier national word mark MAGNET 4 – Likelihood of confusion

Court: ECJ
Date: 19-Mar-2015
Statutes: Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 8(1)(b)
Links: Bailii,
References: C-182/14, [2015] EUECJ C-182/14, ECLI:EU:C:2015:187

Leave a Comment

Filed under European, Intellectual Property

Kik -v- Staatssecretaris van Finacie; ECJ 19-Mar-2015

ECJ Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Social security – Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 – Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons – National of a Member State, in which he resides, employed on a pipe-laying vessel flying the flag of another third State – Person initially employed by an undertaking established in the Netherlands and subsequently by an undertaking established in Switzerland – Work performed, in succession, on the continental shelf adjacent to a third State, in international waters and in the part of the continental shelf adjacent to certain Member States – Scope ratione personae of Regulation No 1408/71 – Determination of the legislation applicable

Court: ECJ
Date: 19-Mar-2015
Statutes: Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71
Links: Bailii,
References: C-266/13, [2015] EUECJ C-266/13

Leave a Comment

Filed under Benefits, European

Evropaa

ECJ Judgment – Public service contracts – Tendering procedure – Supply of IT services – Classification of a tenderer in second or third position in the cascade procedure – Obligation to state reasons – Manifest error of assessment – Non-contractual liability

Court: ECFI
Date: 25-Mar-2015
Links: Bailii,
References: T-297/09, [2015] EUECJ T-297/09, ECLI:EU:T:2015:184

Leave a Comment

Filed under European

E.On Foldgaz Trade Zrt -v- Magyar Energetikai es Kozmu-szabalyozasi Hivatal; ECJ 19-Mar-2015

ECJ Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Internal market in natural gas -Directive 2003/55/EC – Article 25 – Directive 2009/73/EC – Articles 41 and 54 – Temporal application -Regulation (EC) No 1775/2005 – Article 5 – Capacity allocation mechanisms and congestion management procedures – Decision of a regulatory authority – Right to bring an action – Action brought by a company holding a natural gas transmission authorisation – Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Article 47 – Right to effective judicial protection against a decision of a regulatory authority

Court: ECJ
Date: 19-Mar-2015
Links: Bailii,
References: C-510/13, [2015] EUECJ C-510/13, ECLI:EU:C:2015:189

Leave a Comment

Filed under European

Dole Food And Dole Fresh Fruit Europe -v- Commission; ECJ 19-Mar-2015

ECJ Judgment – Appeals – Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – European banana market – Coordination in the setting of quotation prices – Obligation to state reasons – Belated statement of reasons – Belated submission of evidence – Rights of defence – Principle of equality of arms – Principles governing the establishment of the facts – Distortion of the facts – Assessment of the evidence – Market structure – Requirement for the Commission to specify those aspects of the exchange of information which constitute a restriction of competition by object – Burden of proof – Calculation of the fine – Whether sales made by subsidiaries not involved in the infringement are to be taken into account – Sales of the same bananas counted twice

Court: ECJ
Date: 19-Mar-2015
Links: Bailii,
References: C-286/13, [2015] EUECJ C-286/13, ECLI:EU:C:2015:184

Leave a Comment

Filed under Commercial, European

City Cycle Industries -v- Council; ECFI 19-Mar-2015

ECJ Judgment – Dumping – Imports of bicycles consigned from Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia – Extension to such imports of the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of bicycles originating in China – Circumvention – Failure to cooperate – Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 – Obligation to state reasons – Error of assessment – Equal treatment – Access to the file

Court: ECFI
Date: 19-Mar-2015
Links: Bailii,
References: T-413/13, [2015] EUECJ T-413/13

Leave a Comment

Filed under European

Belgium -v- Commission; ECFI 25-Mar-2015

ECJ Judgment – State aid – Public Health – Aid granted to finance the TSE testing (EST) in cattle – Decision declaring the aid partly compatible and partly incompatible with the internal market – Action for annulment – Act adversely affecting – Admissibility- Concept of advantage – selectivity Notion

Court: ECFI
Date: 25-Mar-2015
Links: Bailii,
References: T-538/11, [2015] EUECJ T-538/11, ECLI: EU: T: 2015 188

Leave a Comment

Filed under European

TM -v- Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Esa); UTAA 4-Mar-2015

Income-related employment and support allowance – Recovery of Overpayments : Failure To Disclose

Court: UTAA
Date: 04-Mar-2015
Judges: Rowland UTJ
Links: Bailii,
References: [2015] UKUT 109 (AAC),

Leave a Comment

Filed under Benefits

MM and Another, Regina (on The Application of) -v- Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and Others; UTAA 9-Mar-2015

UTAA Equality Act – The applicants, who suffer from mental health problems, brought their claims for judicial review under the Equality Act 2010 (‘the Equality Act’) asserting that they were placed at a substantial disadvantage in comparison to claimants and recipients of Employment and Support Allowance (‘ESA’) who did not suffer from mental health problems in relation to (i) the processes of assessment and re-assessment for continuing entitlement to that benefit or, alternatively (ii) the process of assessing whether an existing entitlement to Incapacity Benefit would continue as an award of ESA.

Court: UTAA
Date: 09-Mar-2015
Judges: Mr Justice Charles and Upper Tribunal Judges Edward Jacobs and Shelley Lane
Links: Bailii,
References: [2015] UKUT 107 (AAC),

Leave a Comment

Filed under Benefits, Discrimination

YA -v- Central and NW London NHS Trusts and Others; UTAA 4-Feb-2015

UTAA Mental Health : All

Court: UTAA
Date: 04-Feb-2015
Links: Bailii,
References: [2015] UKUT 37 (AAC),

Leave a Comment

Filed under Benefits

JT -v- HMRC TC; UTAA 20-Feb-2015

UTAA Tribunal Procedure and Practice (Including UT) : Fair Hearing)

Court: UTAA
Date: 20-Feb-2015
Links: Bailii,
References: [2015] UKUT 81 (AAC),

Leave a Comment

Filed under Benefits

AMA -v- Greater Manchester West Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust and Others; UTAA 4-Feb-2015

UTAA Mental Health : All

Court: UTAA
Date: 04-Feb-2015
Links: Bailii,
References: [2015] UKUT 36 (AAC),

Leave a Comment

Filed under Health

Sea Handling -v- Commission; ECFI 25-Mar-2015

ECJ Judgment – Access to documents – Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 – Documents relating to a State aid control procedure – Refusal of access – Exception relating to the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits – Exception relating to the protection of commercial interests of a third party – Obligation to make a concrete, individual examination – Overriding public interest – Partial access

Court: ECFI
Date: 25-Mar-2015
Statutes: Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001
Links: Bailii,
References: T-456/13, [2015] EUECJ T-456/13, ECLI: EU: T: 2015: 185

Leave a Comment

Filed under European

Maggiulli -v- Commission; ECJ 24-Mar-2015

ECJ Judgment – Public service – Promotion – Promotion year 2013 – Decision not to promote – Consideration of comparative merits

Court: ECJ
Date: 24-Mar-2015
Links: Bailii,
References: F-61/14, [2015] EUECJ F-61/14, ECLI: EU: F: 2015: 20

Leave a Comment

Filed under European

Chin Haur Indonesia -v- Council; ECFI 19-Mar-2015

ECJ Judgment – Dumping – Imports of bicycles consigned from Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia – Extension to such imports of the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of bicycles originating in China – Circumvention – Failure to cooperate – Articles 13 and 18 of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 – Obligation to state reasons – Error of assessment

Court: ECFI
Date: 19-Mar-2015
Statutes: Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 13 18
Links: Bailii,
References: T-412/13, [2015] EUECJ T-412/13, ECLI:EU:T:2015:163

Leave a Comment

Filed under European

Borghans -v- Commission; ECJ 23-Mar-2015

ECJ Judgment – Public service – Remuneration – Survivor’s pension – Article 27, first paragraph, of Annex VIII to the Staff – Divorced spouse of a deceased staff – Existence of alimony on the date of official’s death – Article 42 of the Annex VIII to the Staff – Introductory time of an application for liquidation of pension rights ‘

Court: ECJ
Date: 23-Mar-2015
Links: Bailii,
References: F-6/14, [2015] EUECJ F-6/14

Leave a Comment

Filed under European

All Party Parliamentary Group On Extraordinary Rendition -v- Information Commissioner and Foreign and Commonwealth Office; UTAA 11-Feb-2015

Information Rights : Other

Court: UTAA
Date: 11-Feb-2015
Judges: Mr Justice Charles CP, Mr Justice Mitting, Upper Tribunal Judge Wikeley
Links: Bailii,
References: [2015] UKUT 68 (AAC),

Leave a Comment

Filed under Information

Mirza -v- Ofsted; FTTHE 10-Feb-2015

Childminders and Day Care Providers for children – Cancellation of registration

Court: FTTHE
Date: 10-Feb-2015
Links: Bailii,
References: [2015] UKFTT 60 (HESC),

Leave a Comment

Filed under Health Professions