NGP Utilities Ltd v Dunnington (Unlawful Deduction From Wages): EAT 10 Nov 2020

The Employment Tribunal was wrong to refuse permission to the Respondent to rely on similar fact evidence in support of its contention that the Claimant mis-sold contracts and wrongly claimed commission on them. The effect of the evidence was that she had made dishonest commission claims in her previous and subsequently employment. The Employment Tribunal erred in:
(a) relying on the principle of finality in litigation, which was inapplicable;
(b) concluding that the overriding objective favoured excluding the evidence, when it did not; and
(c) not identifying a good reason for excluding relevant evidence.

Citations:

[2020] UKEAT 0315 – 19 – 1011

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.661663

Noble v Box and Others (Transfer of Undertakings): EAT 29 Mar 2021

Transfer of Undertakings
The appeal is one in which no party other than the Appellant was represented. That representative, although experienced in the employment law field, is not a qualified lawyer. No authority was cited to the EAT, and the decision is one which should be treated with care.
However the EAT held that the ET erred in law in holding that, when an agreement for the transfer of a law firm became void by operation of s284 Insolvency Act 1986, there had nonetheless been a valid transfer within the meaning of the Transfer of Undertakings (Employment Protection) Regulations 2006 (‘TUPE’). The ET had not explained the legal basis for the distinction.
The ET also erred in dismissing a separate claim which was not before it and on which the Appellant had not been heard.

Citations:

[2021] UKEAT 0203 – 19 – 2903

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.661703

Biktasheva v University of Liverpool (Equal Pay): EAT 3 Nov 2020

The Claimant brought a ‘like work’ claim in 2015. The 2015 claim was withdrawn without the Claimant, who was legally advised at the time, stating that she wished to reserve the right to bring a further claim that was the same, or substantially the same, in the future. In 2018 the Claimant brought a further like work claim in relation to the same work, naming different comparators, but not contending there was any change in the work being done by her, or her comparators, compared to the 2015 claim. The only proper conclusion was that the 2018 claim, as pleaded by the Claimant, should be struck out because it was precluded by cause of action estoppel and/or operation of Rule 52 of the ET Rules.

Citations:

[2020] UKEAT 0253 – 19 – 0311

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.661659

De Lacey v Wechseln Ltd (T/A The Andrew Hill Salon) (Ex Discrimination and Maternity Rights and Parental Leave): EAT 1 Apr 2021

The Appellant claimed that she had been discriminated against by the Respondent hair salon on the grounds of sex/maternity. She claimed that the Respondent had engaged in a course of discriminatory conduct consisting of various matters from May 2015 until she resigned and claimed constructive dismissal in January 2017. These included two particular matters in 2015 (her treatment in relation to a ‘trade test’ in May 2015, and ‘cold-shouldering’ treatment by the salon’s principal in the period from May to October 2015). The Employment Tribunal found that the Appellant had established a prima facie case of sex/maternity discrimination in relation to these two matters, but the Tribunal did not go on to decide whether they were acts of sex discrimination. This was because the Tribunal decided that there was no need to do so as any claim relating to these matters would be out of time: the Tribunal found that there had been no course of discriminatory conduct which had extended into the primary limitation period, and that it was not just and equitable to extend time for a discrimination claim.
The Tribunal also found that the Appellant had been constructively dismissed, for the purposes of a claim of unfair dismissal, by reason of a course of conduct which included the two matters and which culminated in a ‘last straw’ incident in January 2017.
The EAT found that the ET had erred in law in failing to consider whether the constructive dismissal was itself discriminatory. In order to do so, the ET should have decided (1) whether the two matters in 2015 were acts of sex/maternity discrimination and, (2) if so, whether they sufficiently influenced the constructive dismissal to mean that the constructive dismissal itself amounted to sex discrimination. The fact that the last straw was not itself discriminatory did not automatically mean that the constructive dismissal was not discriminatory. If the constructive dismissal was discriminatory, then the claim for discrimination would be in time, even though the events that rendered the constructive dismissal discriminatory were themselves outside the primary limitation period.
The case was remitted to the same Employment Tribunal to determine whether the constructive dismissal was unlawful sex discrimination.

Citations:

[2021] UKEAT 0038 – 20 – 0104

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.661709

Brown v Revenue and Customs (Excise – Red Diesel): FTTTx 8 Feb 2021

EXCISE – red diesel – whether penalty decision or restoration decision – whether decision valid – on assumption that a restoration decision, set aside as unreasonable – HMRC directed to make a new decision

Citations:

[2021] UKFTT 35 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Customs and Excise

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.661752

Sonic (Trade Mark: Opposition): IPO 3 Sep 2019

Sections 5(1), 5(2) and 5(3) Earlier Trade Marks – Particular visual / aural / conceptual considerations
Sections 5(1), 5(2) and 5(3) Average Customer – Identification of
Sections 5(1), 5(2) and 5(3) Average Customer – Purchasing process

Citations:

[2019] UKIntelP o51219

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.661102

Pure (Trade Mark: Opposition): IPO 23 Jul 2019

Sections 5(1), 5(2) and 5(3) Earlier Trade Marks – Distinctive and dominant components
Sections 5(1), 5(2) and 5(3) Earlier Trade Marks – Treatment of descriptive / allusive elements
Sections 5(1), 5(2) and 5(3) Issues To Do With Goods / Services – Goods v retail services

Citations:

[2019] UKIntelP o42619

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.661000

Tast Cuina Catalana (Trade Mark: Opposition): IPO 24 Sep 2019

Sections 5(1), 5(2) and 5(3) Earlier Trade Marks – Distinctive and dominant components
Sections 5(1), 5(2) and 5(3) Earlier Trade Marks – Composite word and device marks
Sections 5(1), 5(2) and 5(3) Earlier Trade Marks – Treatment of descriptive / allusive elements

Citations:

[2019] UKIntelP o55919

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.661105

The Bonzo Dog Doo-Dah Band (Trade Mark: Opposition): IPO 30 Oct 2019

Section 3(6) Bad Faith – Knowledge of opponent’s use in the UK
Section 3(6) Bad Faith – Application by local agent / UK distributor problems
Section 3(6) Bad Faith – Partnership issues
Section 3(6) Bad Faith – Music groups
Section 5(4) Earlier Rights – Passing off (Issues arising from Registry proceedings)
Section 5(4) Earlier Rights – Relevant date

Citations:

[2019] UKIntelP o66419

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.661119

Cupids Inspiration (Trade Mark: Opposition): IPO 11 Sep 2019

Sections 5(1), 5(2) and 5(3) Earlier Trade Marks – Distinctive and dominant components
Sections 5(1), 5(2) and 5(3) Earlier Trade Marks – Treatment of descriptive / allusive elements
Section 5(4) Earlier Rights – Passing off (Issues arising from Registry proceedings)
Section 5(4) Earlier Rights – Relevant date

Citations:

[2019] UKIntelP o53719

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.661069

Soul Train Records (Trade Mark: Invalidity): IPO 31 Jul 2019

Section 3(6) Bad Faith – No intention to use
Section 3(6) Bad Faith – Knowledge of opponent’s mark outside the UK
Revocation / Proof of Use – Dates – calculation of dates
Revocation / Proof of Use – Dates – genuine use
Procedural Issues – Costs – litigants in person, actual, security for

Citations:

[2019] UKIntelP o44619

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.661009

Webb v Baldwin: 1911

Parker J said: ‘Dedication . . may be established by proof of definite acts of dedication on the part of the owner, or it may be inferred from use and enjoyment on the part of the public; but such use and enjoyment must be use and enjoyment as of right known to the owner and acquiesced in by him.
Further, this knowledge and recognition on the part of the owner may itself be inferred from the fact that the use and enjoyment has been so open and notorious as of right as to give rise to the presumption that the owner must have been aware of it and has acquiesced in it . . ‘

Judges:

Parker J

Citations:

[1911] 75 JP 564

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.651704

Jaques v Secretary of State for the Environment: 1995

Laws pointed out that the law on dedication of had moved forward, saying: ‘Taking the passage cited from Scott LJ in Jones v Bates as a full and convenient description of the common law, it seemed that the material change effected by the statute of 1932 (and carried through to the Act of 1980) did not merely consist in a shift of the burden of proof. The common law required not only that the claimant to the right should show that the landowner had evinced an intention to dedicate, he had to show actual dedication; and it was precisely because such an event was usually fictitious or imaginary that the common law was unsatisfactory. But under section 31 the landowner had to prove merely that he had no intention to dedicate; certainly, he had to prove it by overt acts, directed (as Lord Denning indicated in Fairey) to the public who use the way in question. Lord Denning contemplated that the traditional means of closing the way for one day in the year would suffice.
The result was, in his view, that under the statute the landowner had a lesser proposition to disprove than under the common law the claimant had to prove. That approach vindicated the plain purpose of the Act of 1932 for the very reason explained by Scott LJ; it expunged from the law the Alice in Wonderland requirement of any actual dedication.’

Judges:

Laws J

Citations:

[1995] JPL 1031

Statutes:

Rights of Way Act 1932, Highways Act 1980 31

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Jones v Bates CA 1938
The court considered whether there had been an act by the landowner sufficient to amount to a dedication a path as a public right of way. Scott LJ said that actual dedication was ‘often a pure legal fiction [which] put on the affirmant of the public . .

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Nicholson and Another, Secretary of State for Environment and others Admn 20-Dec-1996
N objected to the reclassification of a public footpath over his farm as a byway open to all traffic, saying that there had been insufficient evidence to establish a dedication at common law.
Held: N’s appeal failed. ‘A track can become a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.651703

AB v Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs TC: UTAA 6 Dec 2019

Tax credits – ‘Main responsibility’ – Held that the First-tier Tribunal’s decision that the person who was the contact point for the children’s school, GP and dentist was ultimately determinative as the person who had the main responsibility was an error of law for the reasons in paragraph 8. The Judge directed the new tribunal to follow the approach set out by Judge Jacobs in paragraph 38 of PG v Commissioners of HMRC and NG (TC) [2016] UKUT 216 (AAC)

Citations:

[2019] UKUT 410 (AAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.651674

Re X: FC 20 May 2020

Application for a parental order concerning a young child, X, born following a surrogacy arrangement entered into between the applicants, Mr and Mrs Y, and the respondents, Mr and Mrs Z.

Judges:

Mrs Justice Theis

Citations:

[2020] EWFC 39

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.651689

TD v First-Tier Tribunal and CICA (CIC): UTAA 21 Oct 2019

Criminal Injuries Compensation – The First-tier Tribunal’s decision to strike out an appeal for non-compliance with directions was made in ignorance of the fact that there had been partial compliance. The Upper Tribunal did not remake the strike out decision or remit it to the First-tier Tribunal. The FTT should have considered an application for reinstatement which was likely to have been successful. In the light of that and the delay which had occurred, the fair way of proceeding was for the FTT to progress and determine the appeal.

Citations:

[2019] UKUT 322 (AAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Personal Injury

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.651665

Department for Education (Central Government): ICO 31 Mar 2020

The complainant requested information about Langdale Free School to the Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA). The Department for Education (DfE) says it is not obliged to comply with the request under section 12(1) of the FOIA, as it would exceed the appropriate cost and time limit to do so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfE is not obliged to comply with the request under section 12(1) and is satisfied that the DfE met its obligation under section 16 to offer advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
FOI 12: Complaint not upheld FOI 16: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2020] UKICO fs50885034

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.651454

EB v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and CW: UTAA 21 Oct 2019

Child support – calculation of gross weekly income – change from historic to current income – basis of calculation of income from self-employment – not a freestanding calculation based on any evidence available in respect of effective date.

Citations:

[2019] UKUT 321 (AAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Child Support

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.651657

Department for Education (Central Government) FS50830863: ICO 5 Dec 2019

The complainant has requested information on a high pay exercise conducted by the Department for Education (DfE) into academy trusts and for trusts to be named in relation to various categories. The DfE refused the request on the basis of section 36(2)(c) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfE was entitled to rely on section 36(2)(c) and the public interest favours maintaining the exemption and withholding the requested information.
FOI 36: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO FS50830863

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.651560

Operation Holdings Ltd (T/A Goldcare Homes), Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 3 Sep 2019

Appeal from revocation of sponsorship licence

Judges:

Miss Alison Foster QC sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court

Citations:

[2019] EWHC 3884 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Health Professions

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.651350

Evans and Another v The Chief Constable of The South Wales Police: QBD 16 Nov 2017

‘Do the provisions of paragraphs 7(1) and 7(2) of Schedule 3 to the Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006 entitle a Chief Constable to deduct the full sums of Incapacity Benefit (IB) and Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit (IIDB) from the injury pension paid to a former police officer in weeks in a year after the year in which the former police officer retired where the amounts of IB and IIDB have been increased by an Annual Uprating Order made under section 150 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 and accordingly the levels of IB and IIDB payable to the former officer have increased.’

Judges:

Haddon-Cave J

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 2835 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Police

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.651251

Lenkor Energy Trading DMCC v Puri: QBD 4 Jun 2020

Appeal from an order granting summary judgment to the respondent, Lenkor Energy Trading DMCC, in respect of its common law action for debt owed to it by the appellant under a judgment of the Dubai First Instance Court against the appellant in favour of Lenkor Dubai. The appellant relied on the defence that the recognition of the Dubai FIC judgment in England and enforcement in England of a debt claim arising under that judgment would be contrary to public policy.

Judges:

Murray J

Citations:

[2020] EWHC 1432 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.651241

Ali Raja and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v London Borough of Redbridge: Admn 5 Jun 2020

Case about the night-time care needs of two adult brothers with severe physical and learning disabilities. It is about whether the sole justifiable response for the local authority to adopt was to provide additional care and support pending a full needs reassessment.

Citations:

[2020] EWHC 1456 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Local Government, Health

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.651200

Razaq v Zafar: QBD 18 May 2020

Appeal from a decision to refuse the Claimant relief from the automatic sanctions in CPR 32.10 which prevent him calling evidence at trial because his witness statements were served later than the time directed by the court.

Judges:

Mrs Justice Yip DBE

Citations:

[2020] EWHC 1236 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.651231

Looney; Kieran Looney and Associates (A Firm) v Revenue and Customs:: UTTC 22 Apr 2020

Tax treatment of certain payments under management training contract – whether FTT erred in conclusion termination payment trading revenue receipt (consideration for cancellation of the contract to provide training) rather than capital (compensation for loss of a secret process in proprietary performance management system) – House of Lords’ decision in Evans Medical Supplies Ltd v Moriarty (H M Inspector of Taxes) ([1957] 37 TC 540) considered – no – whether FTT erred in conclusion other contractual payments gave rise to tax liability on appellant (as opposed, through a multiparty agreement, to other entities appellant owned) – no – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2020] UKUT 119 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.651190

Financial Solutions (Euro) Ltd v The Financial Conduct Authority: UTTC 22 Apr 2020

FINANCIAL SERVICES – Decision Notice cancelling Part 4A permission on grounds applicant did not have professional indemnity insurance and was failing to pay fees and levies – whether applicant continued to satisfy the threshold conditions of having appropriate resources and suitability-whether matter should be remitted for reconsideration in the light of Tribunal’s findings – yes – reference allowed – ss 55B, 55J, Schedule 6 para 2D and 2E FSMA 2000- MIPRU 3.2.1 and FEES 2.3.1R of the Authority’s Handbook of Rules and Guidance

Citations:

[2020] UKUT 139 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Financial Services

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.651192

Re C (Children : COVID-19: Representation): CA 10 Jun 2020

Appeal from a decision to continue a fact-finding hearing in care proceedings concerning four young children in circumstances where leading counsel for one of the parents cannot be physically present because she is required to shield from the Covid-19 infection.

Judges:

Lord Justice Peter Jackson

Citations:

[2020] EWCA Civ 734

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Children, Litigation Practice

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.651254

Tully v Exterion Media (UK) Ltd and Another: QBD 12 Mar 2020

Can a Claimant who has permission to ‘further exchange . . expert medical reports . . limited to issues arising from . . surveillance footage and the Claimant’s witness statement’, in circumstances such as those which apply in this case, proceed to instruct their expert to conduct a re-examination of the Claimant and produce an updating report which deals generally with the Claimant’s medical position as well as addressing the surveillance footage and witness statement? Or is the Claimant limited to simply producing a report limited to the issues arising from the surveillance evidence and the Claimant’s explanatory statement?

Judges:

McCloud M

Citations:

[2020] EWHC 1119 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.651213

Breitenbach and Others v Canaccord Genuity Financial Planning Ltd (1354): ChD 18 May 2020

Judges:

Mr Justice Fancourt and Master Kaye

Citations:

[2020] EWHC 1354 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Breitenbach and Others v Canaccord Genuity Financial Planning Ltd (1355) ChD 18-May-2020
Disclosure of documents . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Professional Negligence

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.651118

Breitenbach and Others v Canaccord Genuity Financial Planning Ltd (1355): ChD 18 May 2020

Disclosure of documents

Judges:

Mr Justice Fancourt and Master Kaye

Citations:

[2020] EWHC 1355 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Breitenbach and Others v Canaccord Genuity Financial Planning Ltd (1354) ChD 18-May-2020
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.651119

Linse, Regina (on The Application of) v Chief Constable of North Wales Police: Admn 29 May 2020

Whether a certificate of motor insurance which may be avoided for non-disclosure is nevertheless a ‘valid’ certificate of insurance within the meaning of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (Retention and Disposal of Seized Motor Vehicles) Regulations 2005

Citations:

[2020] EWHC 1288 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Road Traffic

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.651097

Gorton Local Board v Prison Comrs (Note): 1887

The Prison Commissioners were not bound by local by-laws made under the Public Health Act 1875, requiring the local authority to certify that newly built houses were fit for human habitation.

Citations:

Unreported,1887

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Noted – Cooper v Hawkins 1904
Vehicles driven by Crown servants on Crown business were not subject to the speed limits laid down by the local authority under the Locomotives Act 1865. . .
Cited – Black, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice SC 19-Dec-2017
The Court was asked whether the Crown is bound by the prohibition of smoking in most enclosed public places and workplaces, contained in Chapter 1 of Part 1 of the Health Act 2006.
Held: However reluctantly, the claimant’s appeal was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.651106

Mv Promotions Ltd and Another v Telegraph Media Group Ltd and Another: ChD 29 May 2020

Contract – Interpretation – Mistake as to parties – Correction by construction
Contract – Rectification – Common Mistake – Discretion – Existing Deed of Rectification – Tax advantages

Judges:

Hodge QC HHJ

Citations:

[2020] EWHC 1357 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Contract

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.651124

Dell Emerging Markets (EMEA) Ltd and Others v Systems Equipment Telecommunications Services Sal and Others: ComC 2 Apr 2020

Resumed hearing of the claimants’ application for an order that all the respondents are guilty of contempt of court.

Citations:

[2020] EWHC 1384 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Dell Emerging Markets (EMEA) Ltd and Others v Systems Equipment Telecommunications Services SAL ComC 13-Mar-2020
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contempt of Court

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.651148