Latest Cases

Restraint of trade by agreement – Employer and employee. The Queen's Bench Division, in refusing an application for an interim injunction against the respondent, a former employee, in which it sought to enforce the terms of a restrictive covenant contained in the respondent's contract of employment, held that the relevant clause was in restraint of trade and unenforceable. The clause also provided that the respondent would continue to be paid in full by his former employer for the duration of the covenant, provided that he complied with the restriction. The covenant was plainly far wider than was reasonably necessary for the protection of the applicant's business interests. It was contrary to public policy in effect to permit an employee to purchase a restraint. 

Solicitor – Negligence. The Chancery Division dismissed a claim for professional negligence in respect of advice on a tax avoidance scheme based on the establishment of an employee benefit trust (EBT). On the facts, the defendants had not been in breach of their duty of care in a manner that had caused the claimant any loss as claimed in the proceedings. 

Employment Tribunal – Jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the appellant's appeal which concerned the jurisdiction of the Employment Tribunal (the ET) to hear and determine complaints against qualifications bodies under Pt 5 of the Equality Act 2010. It held that, in the present case, where no statutory appeal to the High Court or internal review or appeal was provided for, the existence of judicial review did not preclude the use of the ET. 

Restraint of trade by agreement – Employer and employee. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the defendants' appeal in respect of the judge's findings of breaches of non-compete and non-solicitation covenants in the sale of a business providing 'supported living' services for children leaving care and vulnerable adults. Further, it upheld the judge's conclusion that an award of damages on the Wrotham Park basis (see Wrotham Park Estate Co Ltd v Parkside Homes Ltd[1974] 2 All ER 321) was the just response in the present case. 

Sentence – Drug offence. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, allowed the defendants' appeals against sentences imposed for a conspiracy to import and supply cocaine and for the importation of ammunition. Further, the court determined the appropriate credit due to each of the defendants for their guilty pleas. 

Child – Custody. The Family Division granted Madonna permission to withdraw proceedings brought by her, under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, for the summary return of her son to the United States. It held that r 29.4 of the Family Procedure Rules, SI 2010/2955, applied to applications in proceedings under the Hague Convention and, accordingly, the permission of the court was required to withdraw such proceedings. It ruled that, applying settled law to the facts, in circumstances where the mother and the father accepted that the Supreme Court of the State of New York had jurisdiction in the present matter, there were positive merits to permitting the mother to withdraw her application in the present jurisdiction. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed a husband's appeal against the refusal of his application to strike out his wife's claim for financial relief. The court found that the judge had erred in finding that the husband was not entitled, in principle, to immunity due to his appointment as a Permanent Representative to the International Maritime Organisation, but upheld the judge's conclusion that the husband was permanently resident in the United Kingdom and that, in those circumstances, he was not entitled to immunity from as it applied only to claims in respect of official acts performed in the exercise of his functions. 

Claim form – Service. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed an appeal against the refusal to validate service of a claim form under CPR 6.15. There had been no error in law in the judge's approach in circumstances where there had not been a good reason not to have correctly effected service on the defendant within time. 

Practice – Settlement. The Commercial Court held that the claimant company's application for summary judgment with regard to a threshold issue in its claim against the defendant solicitors' firm would be dismissed. The court held that the claim advanced by the claimant would be 'caught' by an earlier settlement agreement and the defendant was entitled to a declaration to that effect. 

Criminal law – Procedure. The Lord Chief Justice handed down the first amendment to Practice Direction (Costs in Criminal Proceedings) 2015. The amendment was in respect of the power to award costs and costs incurred as a result of an unnecessary or improper act or omission.