Latest Cases

Employment – Victimisation. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) allowed the employer's appeal against the decision of the employment tribunal to uphold the employee's complaint of victimisation. The EAT decided that the tribunal had not asked itself the right question and that its reasons had not been adequate to explain why it had found against the employer. 

Company – Practice. The Chancery Division allowed an appeal against an order requiring three defendants to pay the claimant petitioners £54,000 following their petition for unfair prejudice in respect of the third defendant limited liability partnership (LLP). It held that, notwithstanding the barring (at a case management conference) of the relevant defendants for breach of an unless order, a final hearing had still been required so the petitioners could prove their case and to hear the defendants' counterclaim. The defendants had attended what had been a case management conference and had left with a judgment of £54,000 plus costs against them, which was unjustified and procedurally unfair. 

Criminal law – Assisting offender. The Supreme Court allowed the appellant's appeal against conviction for murder, in circumstances where the appellant had allegedly assisted or encouraged another person to commit a murder. The court held that the principle regarding encouragement and assistance expressed in the case of Chan Wing-Siu v R (see[1984] 3 All ER 877) had been wrong. It invited written submissions as to whether to quash the appellant's conviction and order a re-trial, or to quash the conviction and substitute a conviction for manslaughter. 

Employment – Disability. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (the EAT) allowed the employee's appeal against a decision of the employment tribunal that he did not have a disability for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010. The EAT held that the tribunal had not given adequate reasons for its conclusions, given the occupational health evidence which it had accepted. Further, applying the relevant caselaw, the employee had had a disability for the purposes of the Act. 

Education – Pupil. The Administrative Court allowed the claimant's application for judicial review of the decisions to transfer him to off-site educational provision and the failure to keep that decision under review. The school had not served the mandatory notice required under reg 3 of the Education (Educational Provision for Improving Behaviour) Regulations 2010, SI 2010/1156 and had failed to conduct mandatory reviews. 

Immigration – Detention. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimant Nigerian national's application for judicial review of the lawfulness of his immigration detention and/or his treatment while in detention. In particular, his detention had not been unlawful due to a breach of the Secretary of State's policy on detaining the mentally ill or the principles in R v Governor of Durham Prison, ex p Singh ([1984] 1 All ER 983). 

Human rights – Right to liberty and security. The European Court of Human Rights found that there had been a breach of art 5(4) of the European Convention on Human Rights, as following the revocation of the applicant's release on licence, it could not be said that the lawfulness of his ongoing detention had been considered speedily. However, there was no breach in regard to the fairness of the detention reviews. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Family Court made a parental order under s 54 Human Embryology and Fertilisation Act 2008 despite the fact that the surrogacy relating to that order had concerned different parties to the original agreement which had been made with the surrogate in 2012. 

Practice – Striking out. In the defendant solicitors' firm's application for summary judgment or strike out, the Chancery Division permitted the claimant to apply for permission to amend the particulars of claim to raise a new cause of action on terms that the defendant was entitled to raise and rely upon any limitation defence it would have if the claimant had issued fresh proceedings at the date of the amendment. 

Patent – Infringement. The Patents Court made rulings in proceedings concerning a patent owned by the defendant company, Eli Lilly, for a product used to treat lung cancer. It held that declarations of non-infringement would be granted in respect of each of the four designations of the patent in issue. Both parties would have permission to apply to the court in the event of a material change of circumstances. Further, declarations were made that two letters sent by Eli Lilly in the course of proceedings did not constitute legally binding undertakings.