Latest Cases

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The claimant and the defendant entered into two written agreements, a master agreement (the master agreement) containing general terms and conditions and an insulation scheme event transaction document (the document). The claimant contended that under the terms of the document the defendant was in breach of contract. The defendant denied that it was in breach of the document or at all. Furthermore it sought to rely on, inter alia, cll 10.1 of the master agreement which excluded liability for indirect losses and limited liability for direct losses to £1,000,000. The claimant denied that the clause limited or excluded liability for the losses it suffered as a result of the breach of the document.The Queen's Bench Division held that cl 10.1 of the master agreement had not excluded liability for the claimant's losses. 

Practice – Stay of proceedings. In three related actions, different United Kingdom health authorities claimed damages for alleged breaches of competition law against four companies in the Servier group (together, Servier). Servier sought a stay of the Scottish and Northern Irish proceedings, submitting that for it to have to defend multiple claims would be contrary to the overriding objective under the CPR of ensuring that cases were dealt with justly and at proportionate cost. The Chancery Division, in dismissing the application, held that the right way to proceed was by active case management of the three actions as they proceeded in parallel, and not by the imposition of a blanket stay. 

Indemnity – Construction of indemnity clause. A foundation and the trustees of the foundation's pension scheme brought proceedings against the second claimant company for negligence and other wrongdoings. The claimant companies sought to recover sums due from the defendant group (RFIB) under an indemnity. The Commercial Court held that a limitation defence would, on the facts, not succeed. However, RFIB was only liable for the settlement sums to the extent that they were in reasonable settlement of the claim for losses occurring prior to the transfer date. It was not liable insofar as the sum represented settlement of the claim for losses occurring after that date. 

Employment tribunal – Procedure. The employee recovered compensation in respect of sex discrimination and unfair dismissal claims. The employer sought a review of the award, with a request to stay the review pending the determination of an appeal in relation to another employee who had been involved in the same incident and dismissed. The employment judge refused the employer's application. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in allowing the employer's appeal, held that the judge had erroneously rejected the application at the threshold stage. Accordingly, the matter would be remitted for consideration. 

Company – Director. The Companies Court dismissed the claimant's appeal against an order disqualifying him from acting as a director of a company for 12 years. The order was not obtuse or conceptually incoherent as alleged by the claimant. Further, the registrar's judgment in relation to the length of disqualification was in accord with principle and authority. 

European Union – Transport. The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that arts 2, 5 and 7 of Regulation (EC) 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) 295/91) had to be interpreted as meaning that the concept of 'arrival time', which was used to determine the length of the delay to which passengers on a flight had been subject, referred to the time at which at least one of the doors of the aircraft was opened, the assumption being that, at that moment, the passengers were permitted to leave the aircraft. 

Employment – Equality of treatment of men and women. The employment tribunal, in considering the employee's claim for equal pay, found that the employee's work had been of equal value to that done by a male comparator and that the employer had failed to make out the genuine material factor (GMF) defence. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in dismissing the employer's appeal, held, inter alia, that the tribunal's findings had not been shown to be unsupported by evidence nor contrary to the agreed evidence. It had been entitled to conclude that the GMF defence had not been made out. 

Immigration – Asylum – Fresh claim. Court of Session: Dismissing a judicial review petition by a failed Iraqi asylum seeker challenging a decision refusing to treat his further submissions as a fresh claim, the court, inter alia, rejected contentions that the decision-maker had taken an irrelevant matter into account, had failed to consider that another immigration judge might depart from country guidance, had provided no proper analysis of the new material, and had failed to apply anxious scrutiny. 

Employment – Discrimination. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) dismissed the employee's appeal against a decision of the employment tribunal rejecting his claims for discrimination on grounds of age and constructive dismissal. Although the EAT considered that the words used by the employer had been discriminatory, it decided that those words had not been material part of conduct which had amounted to the breach in response to which the employee had resigned. 

Immigration – Asylum seeker. The First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (the FTT) assessed the claimant asylum seeker as a minor, but the High Court in distinct judicial review proceedings found that he was not a minor. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (the UT) found error in the FTT's decisions and placed considerable weight on the High Court's decision in finding the claimant an adult. The claimant appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the UT had not been bound by the High Court's decision, but had been entitled to attach considerable weight to it. However, the UT had not regarded itself as bound by the High Court's decision and had not fundamentally erred.