Latest Cases

Unfair dismissal – Determination whether dismissal fair or unfair. The employer dismissed the employee for misconduct, namely dishonesty. The employment tribunal dismissed the employee's claim for unfair dismissal. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in dismissing the employee's appeal, held that the tribunal's conclusions had not been perverse. 

Employment – Termination. The Employment Appeal Tribunal found that the employment tribunal had not erred in finding that ss 57A and 99 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 did not apply to the employee's case. The tribunal had been entitled to reach the conclusion that it had done, and the employee's appeal would be dismissed. 

Competition – Penalty. The Office of Fair Trading (the OFT) had imposed penalties on the claimants, pursuant to the Competition Act 1998, in respect of alleged bid rigging in the construction industry. The claimants, who did not appeal under the Act, sought to challenge the penalties imposed by bringing a common law claim for its restitution. The Chancery Division, in dismissing the claim held that the statutory appeal provided by the Act was the exclusive remedy by which such penalty might be challenged. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimants challenged the decision of the inspector appointed by the first defendant Secretary of State, affirming the refusal of planning permission for the construction of 23 affordable housing units. The Planning Court, in dismissing the application, held that the inspector had not unfairly used or misunderstood a written policy statement not considered in the hearing. Further, she had considered all relevant considerations in determining the weight to be attached to the availability of alternative sites. 

Trade mark – Infringement. The parties were both companies which, among other things, provided vehicle rental services. The proceedings concerned alleged infringement by the defendants of the claimant's trade mark. In the course of proceedings, the claimant made an application seeking to adduce survey evidence. The Chancery Division held that it was appropriate for the survey evidence to be adduced. 

Pension – Pension scheme. Th Chancery Division held, among other things, that, in respect of the Arcadia Group Pension Scheme and the Arcadia Group Senior Executives Pension Scheme, the definitions of retail price index (RPI), applicable in respect of the schemes, operated to confer powers to select an index other than RPI, and that such power of selection was exercisable by the principal employer under the schemes and the trustee of the relevant scheme jointly. 

European Union – Customs and excise. The Court of Justice of the European Union held that art 30 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union had to be interpreted as precluding a levy, such as that provided for under Belgian law, which was applicable only to imports into the Flanders Region of surplus livestock manure and other fertilisers, which was levied on the importer whereas the tax on the surplus manure produced within the territory of the Flanders Region was levied on the producer and was calculated differently from the tax on imports. In that regard, it was immaterial that the member state from which the surplus manure was imported into the Flanders Region provided for a tax reduction in the case of export of that surplus to other member states. 

Unfair Dismissal – Constructive Dismissal. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (the EAT) in dismissing the employee's appeal against the employment tribunal's rejection of her claims for constructive unfair dismissal and of detriments on the grounds of protected disclosures and whistle-blowing, decided that the tribunal had not erred in law and had adequately dealt with the question of alleged detriments and had properly set out its reasoning. 

Contract – Breach of contract. The claimant, Credit Suisse, brought proceedings, claiming €83,196,829 from the defendant company as money allegedly due under an International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA) 2002 agreement (the master agreement) in respect of 11 transactions it had allegedly entered with the defendant. The claimant contended that it had duly terminated the master agreement after the defendant had failed to provide security due under a credit support annex. The Commercial Court held that, notwithstanding that three of the contracts, comprising six of the disputed transactions, had been outside the defendant's capacity and therefore invalid, because of warranties in additional representations in the master agreement, that did not affect Credit Suisse's rights or the defendant's obligations under the master agreement. Alternatively, the claimant was entitled in damages for breach of the warranties to the amount that they could have recovered under the master agreement if all the agreements were valid and binding on the defendant. 

Practice – Conduct of proceedings. The claimant claimed to have been an agent of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and/or Special Branch in Northern Ireland between 1987 and 1991. He brought a claim seeking to prove that security arrangements and promises made to him by State officials of financial and non-financial support were mishandled. The defendant neither admitted nor denied the first claimant's allegations and applied for a declaration under s 6 of Justice and Security Act 2013 to deploy her case with the aid of sensitive material. The Queen's Bench Division held that the conditions under s 6 of the Act had been met and that the case raised difficult issues which were better decided under the umbrella of s 6 proceedings.