Latest Cases

Unfair Dismissal – Constructive Dismissal. The employment tribunal had rejected the employee's claim for unfair constructive dismissal in circumstances where he had given seven months' notice of termination following the alleged breach of contract. The employee's appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal raised a short question of law in relation to s 95(1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act of 1996 as to whether the common law concept of affirmation applied in circumstances where an employee resigned giving notice exceeding the contractual minimum period of notice. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. Court of Session: Refusing a reclaiming motion in judicial review proceedings in which the petitioner, who was granted discretionary leave to remain in the UK for three years only challenged that decision and sought declarator that he was entitled to indefinite leave to remain, the court rejected the petitioner's central claim that he had a legitimate expectation, based on Parliamentary and other statements, that his application to remain in the UK would be decided by July 2011 as part of the 'legacy' programme and would be dealt with in accordance with the law and practice then in force. 

European Union – Rules on competition. The European Commission had adopted Commission Decision C(2009) 8682 (the contested decision), having found that certain undertakings, including Reagens SpA, had infringed art 81 EC and art 53 of the European Economic Area by participating in two groups of anti-competitive agreements and concerted practices covering the territory of the EEA and concerning, on the one hand, the tin heat stabiliser sector and, on the other, the epoxidised soybean oil and esters sector. In the present proceedings, the General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Reagens SpA for annulment of the contested decision or, in the alternative, a reduction in the amount of the fine imposed on that company. 

Motor insurance – Rights of third parties against insurers. The claimant suffered personal injury as a result of a road traffic accident. The Motor Insurers' Bureau was the insurer of last resort became liable under the Uninsured Drivers' Agreement 1999 (the agreement). The claimant commenced proceedings. The claim was dismissed in the county court on the grounds that the claimant's claim was barred on grounds of public policy and the claimant knew or ought to have known that the vehicle was being used in the course or furtherance of crime, namely the transportation of cannabis for the purpose of subsequent supply, and cl 6(1)(e)(iii) of the agreement was accordingly applicable. The Court of Appeal allowed the claimant's appeal on the ex turpi causa issue on the basis that the joint criminality was only the occasion, and not the cause, of the accident but dismissed it on the cl 6(1)(e)(iii) issue. The claimant issued a new claim for damages arising as a result of the defendant Secretary of State being in breach of art 1(4) of Directive 84/5 (on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles) (the second directive). The Queen's Bench Division held that the United Kingdom, in the legal personification of the defendant, was in plain breach of EU law, and the question of liability to pay compensation on principles in Francovich v Italian Republic therefore arose. 

Company – Distribution of assets. M built up a considerable business involving property and entertainment ventures. When he died, his business was split between the parties. A dispute arose and the claimants brought proceedings against P, M's brother. The Chancery Division, in dismissing the claim, held that P had not, among other things, been in breach of contract, nor had he acted negligently. 

Income tax – Additional assessment. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (the tribunal) dismissed the taxpayer director's appeal against six assessments issued against him pursuant to s 29 of the Taxes Management Act 1970 for the years 2003/04 to 2008/09. The tribunal decided that, contrary to the argument put forward by the taxpayer, there had been a discovery by the relevant officer for the purposes of s 29 of the Act. Accordingly, the appeal in regard to all six years was allowed to proceed to a substantive hearing. 

Conflict of laws – Jurisdiction. The claimant suffered injury in an accident in a car driven by the first defendant in Germany. Proceedings were issued in England. The issue for determination was whether German or English law applied to the assessment of damages, which turned on the application of art 4 of Council Regulation EC 864/2007 (on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations) ('Rome II'). The Queen's Bench Division held that the law applicable to the claim in tort was German law. 

Arbitration – Arbitrator. The Privy Council dismissed the appellant housing trust's appeal against the findings of an arbitrator in a dispute concerning land development in Jamaica. The Privy Council decided that there was no sufficient basis for the Board to disturb the arbitrator's award. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against the order for his extradition to Lithuania to stand trial for unlawful imprisonment and a public order offence. He contended that his extradition was barred by s 25 of the Extradition Act 2003, as he posed a real and immediate risk of suicide. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that there had been no evidence to show that the Lithuanian authorities would not be aware of and would not comply with their obligations, which were to ensure the continued safety of the appellant. 

Unfair dismissal – Determination whether dismissal fair or unfair. The employment tribunal upheld the employee's complaint of unfair dismissal, subject to a 75% deduction under the Polkey principles and 75% contribution and dismissed his complaint for wrongful dismissal. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in allowing the employee's appeal, held that the tribunal had erred by failing to make specific findings of fact as to the misconduct alleged against the employee, both in relation to contributory fault and wrongful dismissal. Accordingly, those matters would be remitted to the same tribunal for reconsideration.