Latest Cases

European Union – Legal basis of regulation. The General Court of the European Union allowed the application by Mr Al-Tabbaa, a Syrian businessman, for annulment of acts by the European Council containing restrictive measures against Syria which concerned the applicant, namely, initially, Council Implementing Decision 2012/256/CFSP (implementing Council Decision 2011/782/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 410/2012 (implementing Article 32(1) of Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria). 

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. The claimant was a Turkish worker who had been employed in the United Kingdom for four years before being refused indefinite leave to remain based on art 6(1) of Decision No 1/80 made pursuant to the EEC-Turkey Association Agreement. He was refused permission to bring judicial review proceedings against the decision to grant him a further three years' leave. He was granted permission to appeal in respect of the 'standstill clause' at art 13 of the Decision. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed his appeal as it was clear under the caselaw from the Court of Justice of the European Union that arts 6(1) and 13 of the Decision were directed at different situations and his rights were covered by art 6(1) as applied by the Secretary of State. 

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. 

Particulars of claim – Amendment. The proceedings concerned the award of a contract to provide legal services. The claimant solicitors' firm was unsuccessful in a tendering process, and brought proceedings against the defendant Insolvency Service. It sought to amend its particulars of claim. The court dismissed the application, and the claimant appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the appeal would be allowed in respect of the amendment, and that a suspension regarding the award of the contract would be maintained regarding one of the tenderers. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against the judge's decision to send his case to the Secretary of State for her to decide whether he should be extradited to Albania following his convictions there for premeditated murder and possession of firearms. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the appeal, followed the decision of the High Court of Justiciary Appeal Court in Kapri v Lord Advocate ([2014] HCJAC 33), which found that there was no evidence of judicial corruption in Albania, as it was not demonstrably wrong or substantially undermined by evidence not before that court. Further, there was no basis for the appellant to assert that he would not receive a re-trial, given the guarantee by the Albanian Ministry of Justice. 

Costs – Order for costs. Following the claimant's success in obtaining an injunction against the defendant, the claimant applied, pursuant to CPR 36.14(3)(d) in the prescribed percentages, calculated by reference to the sum awarded in respect of costs. The Queen's Bench Division held that the imposition of an additional liability would involve an element of penalty which the court did not consider just to impose on the defendant. The court would therefore decline to impose on the defendant an order for an additional amount. 

Income tax – Emoluments from office or employment. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (the tribunal) ruled upon issues arising out of a decision by the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (the FTT) concerning a number of assessments for PAYE and national insurance contributions served on the taxpayers in respect of certain sub-trusts established in the name of individual employees of companies in the Murray group (the taxpayers). The tribunal dismissed the taxpayers' appeals, save in respect of certain termination payments, which would be remitted to the FTT for the purpose, amongst other things, of proceeding as accords in relation to those payments. 

Contempt of court – Committal. The judge granted the claimant permission to bring committal proceedings against the defendants for contempt allegations, concerning false statements. The defendants appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the appeal, held that the judge had been wrong to conclude that there had been a strong prima facie case on the evidence, demonstrating that the defendants had knowingly made false statements. Further, he had failed to consider the history of the proceedings between the parties and had been wrong to conclude that it had been in the public interest that such allegations should proceed to a full committal hearing. 

Land – Sale of land. The claimant brought proceedings, seeking an order for the sale of two properties, which were assets of an informal partnership with his brother, the defendant. The Chancery Division dismissed the claimant's application for a pre-emptive sale order. The court was not prepared to make the draconian pre-emptive sale order sought unless and until independent solicitors and estate agents had been appointed and some attempt had been made to assess the present market.