Latest Cases

Employment – Discrimination. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in allowing the employer, Ford Motor Company Ltd's appeal, held that an employment judge who had ruled at a preliminary hearing that the employment tribunal had jurisdiction, under the Equality Act 2010, to hear age discrimination claims by pensioners, had erred in failing to consider whether the claims fell within both limits of the Act and in applying the Act. 

Insurance – Motor insurance. The Privy Council allowed a Bahamian insurance company's appeal against a decision that it was liable for a judgment in favour of the claimant third party, who had been injured in a collision with a bus insured with it. Under the insurance policy and certificate, the bus had not been insured in respect of third party liability to the claimant arising from the negligent driving of the bus because the driver was not a person named as being entitled to drive in the certificate. 

European Commission – Rules on competition. The General Court of the European Union allowed the application by Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV for annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final (the contested decision) in which the European Commission had found that Air Canada and other carriers had participated in a single and continuous infringement of EU competition law by co-ordinating its behaviour as regards the pricing of freight services. The General Court decided that the contested decision was vitiated by a defective statement of reasons which justified its annulment. 

European Commission – Rules on competition. The General Court of the European Union allowed the application by Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd for annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final (the contested decision) in which the European Commission had found that Air Canada and other carriers had participated in a single and continuous infringement of EU competition law by co-ordinating its behaviour as regards the pricing of freight services. The General Court decided that the contested decision was vitiated by a defective statement of reasons which justified its annulment. 

Human rights – Right to liberty and security. The Supreme Court, in dismissing the claimant's appeal, held that it would not be right to make a declaration that s 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 was incompatible with Sch 1 to the Human Rights Act 1998, specifically, in the present case, art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Nor would it be appropriate to make a declaration that the 'stop and search' that the claimant had experienced had not been in accordance with the law. 

Medical practitioner – Negligence. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the defendant NHS trust's appeal regarding a clinical negligence action, in which the judge had found in favour of the claimant. It held that the judge's conclusion, that a clinical note recording a ward round had been inaccurate, had been entirely open to him on the basis of the evidence and well within the ambit of reasonable decision-making. 

Practice – Chancery Division. The Chancery Division allowed an application by the claimant company to send an analysis of certain documents to the European Commission in the course of proceedings alleging that the defendants (together, Google) had abused a dominant position. There was no suggestion that the analysis was to be used for an improper purpose, and the sending of the analysis would not have a significant effect on the costs in the case. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed an appeal by prospective adopters against an order that a child should be removed from their care and returned to the care of her father. Both the hearing itself and parts of the judge's analysis had been flawed to such an extent that the outcome could not safely be relied upon and, accordingly, the order would be set aside and the welfare issue determined afresh by a different judge. 

Criminal law – Assault. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimant's challenge to a simple caution administered on her by the defendant Metropolitan Police Commissioner for an alleged offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The Commissioner had not breached para 76 of the Ministry of Justice guidance 'Simple Cautions for Adult Offenders' by having stated that the alleged victim had had a broken nose, when it had only been suspected that her nose had been broken. 

Claim form – Service. The Patents Court allowed the claimant company's application for permission to serve proceedings out of the jurisdiction on the second defendant, a company based in China. There was a serious issue to be tried as well as a good arguable case. Further, England and Wales was plainly the proper place to bring the claim.