Latest Cases

Feeds

Daler-Rowney Ltd v Revenue and Customs Commissioners

Employment – Remuneration. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (the EAT) dismissed the employer's argument, amongst other things, that the employment tribunal had been wrong to hold that the indirect discrimination that the National Minimum Wage Regulations 1999, SI 1999/584 had created by providing, in the exemption set out in reg 12(8), more favourable access to employment opportunities for United Kingdom students than for non-UK students had been justified. The EAT decided that the tribunal had been entitled to conclude that the discriminatory effects had been justified as being in pursuit of a legitimate aim. 

Hernández and others v Reino de España (Subdelegación del Gobierno de España en Alicante) and others

European Union – Employment. The European Court of Justice Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of Directive (EC) 2008/94 (on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer) and art 20 of the Charter on the Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The request had been made in proceedings between Mr Julian Hernandez and other employees concerning the payment of an amount corresponding to that of the outstanding remuneration owed to those employees during proceedings challenging their dismissals after the 60th working day following the date on which their actions challenging their dismissals had been brought and until the date of service of the judgment declaring those dismissals to be invalid. 

Kieronski v Regional Court in Tarnow, Poland

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against orders of a district judge for his extradition to Poland to stand trial for fraud, on the basis that it would be oppressive, by reason of his chronic and untreated pseudoexfoliation glaucoma. The Administrative Court, in allowing the appeal, held that, on the evidence that had not been before the judge, it would be oppressive by reason of the appellant's medical condition to order his extradition. 

*Fuchs v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Max Fuchs for annulment of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market concerning opposition proceedings between Les Complices SA and Max Fuchs regarding the application by Max Fuchs for registration, as a Community trade mark, of a figurative sign depicting a star within a circle. 

YS v Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel; Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel v M and another

European Union – Data protection. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of arts 2(a), 12(a) and 13(1)(d), (f) and (g) of Directive (EC) 95/46 of the European Parliament and of the Council (on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data), and of arts 8(2) and 41(2)(b) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The requests had been made in two sets of proceedings between third country nationals who had applied for a residence permit for a fixed period in the Netherlands, and the Netherlands Minister for Immigration, Integration and Asylum, concerning the Minister's refusal to communicate to those nationals a copy of an administrative document drafted before the adoption of the decisions on their applications for residence permits. 

U v Stadt Karlsruhe

European Union – Reference to European Court. The Court of Justice of the European Union considered a request for a preliminary ruling made in the course of proceedings between Mr U and the Stadt Karlsruhe concerning the latter's refusal to alter the form in which Mr U's birth name appeared in his German passport. The Court answered a number of questions relating to the interpretation of Council Regulation (EC) 2252/2004 (on standards for security features and biometrics in passports and travel documents). 

Re JXN (A Child)

Child – Order. The Chinese mother applied to the court for permission to take the child J on holiday to China. The father objected on the basis that there was a risk of abduction. Having regard to the welfare checklist in s 1(3) of the Children Act 1989, the Family Court held that it was in J's best interest to travel to travel to China in the summer. It was important that she kept contact with her Chinese heritage. Further there was no evidence of abduction. 

*Revenue and Customs Commissioners v Pinevale Ltd

Value added tax – Supply of goods or services. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (the tribunal) allowed the appeal by the Revenue and Customs Commissioners against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (the FTT) that supplies of polycarbonate roof panels and radiation strips for conservatory roofs qualified for the reduced rate of VAT. The tribunal decided that the FTT had erred in its interpretation of Note 1(a) of Group 2 of Sch 7A to the Value Added Tax Act 1994. That error had been to construe 'insulation for roofs' as extending to the roof itself when it had energy-saving properties, rather than being confined to insulating materials attached or applied to a roof. 

Warner v Kurian

Personal Injury: Quantum Case. Road traffic accident. The claimant was awarded £6,600 in general damages. She suffered fractures to her mid right ribs, soft tissue injuries to her neck, shoulders and jaw. Rib fractures resolved after four months, neck injury resolved after five months, shoulder injury resolved after three months. The swelling to the claimant's jaw resolved after two weeks and the associated pain and tenderness resolved after four months. 

Pourghazi v Kamyab

Misrepresentation – Deceit. The claimant brought a claim against the defendant, alleging that he had been induced into lending him money in respect of the purchase of a leasehold penthouse in London and into signing a declaration of trust in respect of it, in circumstances where the defendant had not disclosed that a bank had appointed receivers in connection with the property. The Chancery Division set aside the declaration of trust, ruling that the misrepresentations alleged had been proved. 

Show
10
Results
Results
10
Results
virtual magazine View virtual issue

Chair’s Column

Feature image

Investment in justice

The Bar Council will press for investment in justice at party conferences, the Chancellor’s Budget and Spending Review

Job of the Week

Sponsored

Most Viewed

Partner Logo

Latest Cases