Latest Cases

Employment – Remuneration. The respondent ambulance service workers brought a claim against their NHS Trust employer for unlawful deductions from their holiday pay. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the Employment Appeal Tribunal had been correct to find in favour of the respondents and hold that over-time was to be considered part of pay for the purposes of calculating holiday pay.

Costs – Taxation. The appellant appealed against HMRC's decision to issue it an information notice under the Finance Act 2008, which HMRC subsequently withdrew. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that HMRC had not acted unreasonably in its conduct of proceedings such as to engage the costs jurisdiction under the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009.

European Union – Trade marks. Article 4(1)(b) of Directive (EC) 2008/95 had to be interpreted as precluding national legislation making provision for a disclaimer whose effect would be to exclude an element of a complex trade mark, referred to in that disclaimer, from the global analysis of the relevant factors for showing the existence of a likelihood of confusion within the meaning of that provision, or to attribute to such an element, in advance and permanently, limited importance in that analysis. The Court of Justice of the European Union so held in proceedings concerning the refusal to register the word sign 'ROSLAGSÖL' as a national trade mark.

Bankruptcy – Petition. The applicant's application for a stay, and to re-impose an earlier order in the relevant bankruptcy proceedings, failed. The Chancery Division held that the circumstances did not justify a general stay of the order. Further, the balance came down in favour of refusing to exercise the discretion in r 10.32(5) of the Insolvency Rules 2016 to order that there be no notification of the bankruptcy order to the Land Registry or publication in the Gazette.

Immigration – Appeal. In assuming that they had taken the appellant's case 'at its highest' both the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) and the Secretary of State were operating under a misapprehension about the case. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held, accordingly that the case was not an appropriate one for certification with the consequence that the Secretary of State's decision refusing her asylum claim and certifying it as clearly unfounded should have been quashed and set aside.

Costs – Change in funding. The appellant's personal injury claim, arising from a brain injury, was eventually settled. He appealed against the master's decision that the appellant's additional liabilities were not recoverable from the respondent. The Queen's Bench Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the master had correctly directed himself as to the relevant principles of law in finding that neither of the reasons put forward by the appellant's solicitors had justified a change in funding (from legal aid to a conditional fee agreement basis, in conjunction with ATE insurance), and in concluding that the appellant's additional liabilities were not recoverable from the respondent.

Barrister – Pupillage. The respondent Bar Standards Board's decision to refuse the appellant's application for a complete exemption from the non-practising period (the first six months) of pupillage as a whole had been one well within the discretion of the panel. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the appellant' appeal against that decision, held that it was not wrong, but wholly justifiable and right.

Practice – Costs. The claimants had been entitled to their costs of judicial review proceedings that had been discontinued following consent orders reached with HMRC because, although the proceedings had sought interim relief against HMRC's refusal to approve the claimants as wholesale suppliers of alcohol, which HMRC had not been in a position to grant, the claimants had had to start the proceedings in order to have had any chance of obtaining interim protection for as long as it had been needed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissing HMRC's appeal, held that the judges had been entitled to find that the claimants had effectively been successful in gaining what they had sought in the judicial review proceedings.

Practice – Personal injury. Where a claimant's injury had not itself impacted on life expectancy, permission to rely on that category of evidence would not be given, unless there was clear evidence to support the view that the individual was atypical and would enjoy longer or shorter expectation of life. Bespoke life expectancy evidence from an expert in a particular field should be confined to cases where the relevant clinical experts could not offer an opinion at all or stated that they required specific input from a life expectancy expert. Accordingly, following a case management conference, concerning the claimant's personal injury claim, the Queen's Bench Division dismissed the defendants' application for permission to rely on expert evidence on the claimant's life expectancy.

Judicial review – Application for judicial review. The Supreme Court of Mauritius had been entitled to find that the decisions of the appellant Government Ministries had been open to challenge by way of judicial review, but had erred in finding that their decisions not to complete a contract with the respondent had been unreasonable. The Privy Council, allowing the Ministries' appeal held that they had been entitled to make a decision that the respondent had not complied with the pre-contract requirements for the provision of a comfort letter and that the respondent had had no legitimate expectation that, despite that non-compliance, its comfort letter would either be accepted or that further debate was an option.