Fujifilm Kyowa Biologics Co Ltd v Abbvie Biotechnology Ltd: PatC 1 Mar 2016

The court declined to strike out a claim by FKB for a declaration that products which FKB proposed to market in the United Kingdom were old or obvious.

Henry Carr J
[2016] EWHC 425 (Pat)
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal FromFujifilm Kyowa Kirin Biologics Co Ltd v Abbvie Biotechnology Ltd and Another CA 12-Jan-2017
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property

Updated: 18 January 2022; Ref: scu.566276

Imperator I Maritime Company v Bunge Sa: ComC 24 Jun 2016

The question of law which arises on these arbitration appeals is as follows: ‘Where under a time charter the owner warrants to the time charterer that the vessel shall maintain a particular level of performance throughout the charter period, and the time charterer alleges underperformance in breach of that warranty, is it a defence for the owner to prove that the underperformance resulted from compliance with the time charterer’s orders?’

Phillips J
[2016] EWHC 1506 (Comm)
Arbitration Act 1996 69

Arbitration, Transport

Updated: 18 January 2022; Ref: scu.566292

Alsaifi v The Secretary of State for Education: Admn 24 Jun 2016

Statutory appeal against the decision of the authorised decision-maker for the Secretary of State for Education to make an indefinite Prohibition Order (with a review period set for three years) prohibiting the appellant from teaching in any school.

Andrews DBE J
[2016] EWHC 1519 (Admin), [2016] WLR(D) 341
Bailii, WLRD
Teachers’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations, 2012, Education Act 2002
England and Wales


Updated: 18 January 2022; Ref: scu.566263

Faithorn Farrell Timms Llp v Bailey: EAT 28 Jun 2016

EAT Practice and Procedure: Admissibility of Evidence – Admissibility of evidence – common law ‘without prejudice’ privilege – section 111A Employment Rights Act 1996 (‘ERA’)
In proceedings before the ET, the Claimant had complained of constructive unfair dismissal and indirect sex discrimination arising, in part, from the Respondent’s conduct towards her during a period of discussions she had initiated for the agreed termination of her employment. Her grievance and ET1 had referred to the parties’ discussions in this regard on an open basis. In responding to the grievance and in its ET3, the Respondent had not objected but had itself also referred to the material in question. Subsequently, in preparing for the Full Merits Hearing of the Claimant’s claims, the Respondent objected to her reliance on what it said was privileged material, alternatively material rendered inadmissible by virtue of section 111A ERA. On the basis of written submissions, the ET had ruled that the material in question was generally admissible, subject to redaction of specific references to any offer. It had not, however, gone on to deal with the Claimant’s contentions that (i) the Respondent could not rely on without prejudice privilege or section 111A given its unambiguous impropriety/improper behaviour, and (ii) in any event, the parties had waived privilege. On the Respondent’s appeal and the Claimant’s cross-appeal.
Held: Allowing both the appeal and the cross-appeal in part:
(1) In respect of without prejudice privilege.
Rejecting the Respondent’s contention that the ET had erred in its approach to the principle of admissibility of without prejudice negotiations (applicable to the parties’ communications post-dating 7 January 2015, at least so far as the Claimant’s claim of discrimination was concerned); it had correctly applied the relevant principles and reached a permissible case management decision and the appeal was rejected on this point.
If wrong on this, the ET had failed to deal with the points raised by the Claimant as to whether the Respondent was genuinely negotiating in an effort to resolve the dispute and/or whether there was unambiguous impropriety and the cross-appeal would therefore have succeeded on this point.
In any event, the cross-appeal would have succeeded on the other question raised by the Claimant (also not addressed by the ET), that was whether the Respondent had waived without prejudice privilege. That issue was to be resolved in the Claimant’s favour: the Respondent had implicitly waived privilege by relying on the material in issue in its ET3 (although not merely by permitting it to be referenced in the grievance); following Brunel University v Vaseghi [2007] IRLR 592 CA.
(2) On the application of section 111A ERA.
On this question, the ET had wrongly elided the approach to section 111A with that of without prejudice privilege. Section 111A had to be read on its own terms, which did not import the case law underpinning common law without prejudice privilege. The appeal would be allowed on this point.
The cross-appeal would also be allowed in part on the question of the application of section 111A; specifically as to whether there was improper behaviour. Remission of this matter to the ET would also enable it to consider the broader question as to whether section 111A was properly engaged in respect of the communications in issue in this case.
The cross-appeal was, however, dismissed so far as ‘waiver’ of section 111A confidentiality was concerned: section 111A, construed on its own terms, allowed for no possibility of waiver.

[2016] UKEAT 0025 – 16 – 2806
England and Wales


Updated: 18 January 2022; Ref: scu.566248

Nicholson (Nee Woodhouse) v Hazel House Nursing Home Ltd: EAT 12 May 2016

EAT (Unfair Dismissal: Constructive Dismissal – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Disposal of appeal including remission – The Employment Tribunal (‘EAT’) allowed an appeal from a Decision of the Employment Tribunal (‘ET’) on the grounds that the ET’s Reasons on constructive dismissal were flawed by material errors of law. The EAT substituted for a finding that the Claimant was not constructively dismissed a finding that she was constructively unfairly dismissed because, on the facts, there was no other decision to which a reasonable ET, properly directly itself in law, could have come.

Elisabeth Laing DBE J
[2016] UKEAT 0241 – 15 – 1205
England and Wales


Updated: 18 January 2022; Ref: scu.566246

Abrahall and Others v Nottingham City Council and Another: EAT 4 May 2016

EAT Contract of Employment – Whether local authority employees, most of whom had been contractually entitled to an annual increment within grade, and the remainder of whom accepted a promise of it, were deprived of it by the terms of a collective agreement made subsequently (in most cases). They were not, because the collective terms did not, on a true interpretation, take away the right.

Mitting J
[2016] UKEAT 0010 – 16 – 0405
England and Wales


Updated: 18 January 2022; Ref: scu.566245

KLM v EUI Ltd: QBD 24 Jun 2016

Application on behalf of the claimant under CPR 25.7 for an interim payment in respect of her claim for damages for personal injuries, loss and damage arising out of a road traffic accident. She was a passenger in a car driven by her boyfriend, who was insured by the defendant.

Reddihough HHJ
[2016] EWHC 1497 (QB)

Damages, Personal Injury

Updated: 18 January 2022; Ref: scu.566258

Phoenix House Ltd v Stockman and Another: EAT 17 May 2016

EAT Unfair Dismissal: Reason for Dismissal Including Substantial Other Reason – Whether Employment Tribunal entitled to find unfair dismissal when reason for dismissal was some other substantial reason such as to justify dismissal – a breakdown in working relationships – without giving employee the opportunity to show that she could work with colleagues about whom she had made complaint – yes, and whether section 207A Employment Rights Act 1996 applied to dismissal on that ground; – no.

Mitting J
[2016] UKEAT 0264 – 15 – 1705
England and Wales


Updated: 18 January 2022; Ref: scu.566247

Exeter City Council, Regina (on The Application of) v Sandle: Admn 16 May 2011

Appeal by way of case stated from a decision of the Crown Court at Exeter on an appeal against the decision of the Exeter City Council (the appellant in this case) to decline to grant a Hackney Carriage Licence following the expiry of his existing licence.

Ciollins J
[2011] EWHC 1403 (Admin), [2011] LLR 480

Road Traffic

Updated: 18 January 2022; Ref: scu.566252

Biffa Waste Services Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Revenue and Customs: Admn 23 Jun 2016

Biffa challenges a decision of HMRC by which HMRC informed Biffa that it was re-instating a decision directing Biffa to treat as subject to Landfill Tax the use of material in the construction of a ‘regulation layer’ (also referred to as a ‘regulating layer’). This layer is stated to be the layer above the final layer of soft waste placed below the ‘cap’ used to seal the containment system which houses the waste material disposed of within the cell.

Sir Kenneth Parker
[2016] EWHC 1444 (Admin)

Taxes – Other

Updated: 18 January 2022; Ref: scu.566264

The Worshipful Company of Grocers v Keltbray Group Holdings Ltd and Another: QBD 19 May 2016

Allegation that a collapse in a nearby building caused a water leak in the claimant’s nearby building.
Held: the effects of the collapse did not cause the major cracking at Grocers’ Hall which was reported on following the flood. The Grocers have failed to make out their case that the damage to the cistern and the consequent flood were caused by the effects of the collapse.

Salter QC HHJ
[2016] EWHC 1167 (QB)
CitedRhesa Shipping Co SA v Edmonds (The Popi M) HL 16-May-1985
The Popi M sank in calm seas and fair weather as a result of a large and sudden entry of water into her engine room through her shell plating. The vessel’s owners claimed against her hull and machinery underwriters, contending that the loss was . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 18 January 2022; Ref: scu.566255

Committeri v Club Mediterranee Sa Generali Assurances Iard Sa: QBD 30 Jun 2016

Hearing of liability only in relation to a claim against Club Mediterranee SA (‘Club Med’) and Generali Assurances Iard SA (‘Generali’) which arises out of an accident which occurred when C was climbing an ice wall on the Mer de Glace, Chamonix, France slipped and fell causing injuries to his foot and ankle. The success of this claim depends on whether French law applies under which it is common ground that Mr Committeri will obtain judgment for damages to be assessed, or English law applies under which it is common ground that C’s claim will fail.

Dingemans J
[2016] EWHC 1510 (QB)

Personal Injury, International

Updated: 18 January 2022; Ref: scu.566257