Latest Cases

Confidential information – Injunction. The claimant firm of solicitors (Linklaters) was granted an injunction, until 11 February 2019, to restrain the defendant, its ex-employee, from disclosing certain confidential information obtained from, and relating to, his employment, which Linklaters contended was confidential information relating to partners and/or employees of the firm and protected by express duties of confidence owed to it by the defendant, pursuant to his contract of employment. Following the termination of his employment, the defendant had indicated that he would give interviews concerning the 'current culture' at Linklaters in respect of women in the workplace. The Queen's Bench Division held that there was clear evidence of a threat or intention to give interviews for publication about matters that had come to the defendant's attention in the course of his employment, that the likelihood that Linklaters would succeed at a trial was sufficient to justify injunctive relief and that the rights of the third parties involved bolstered the case in favour of granting an injunction.

Building contract – Adjudication. The point advanced by the defendants, that the adjudication itself and the decision had proceeded against an incorrectly named party, was not only wholly unmeritorious, but was in fact a bad point. Accordingly, the Technology and Construction Court allowed the claimants' application for summary judgment of an adjudication award.

Local authority – Accommodation. The Administrative Court allowed the claimant children's application for judicial review of a decision of the defendant local authority that their carer was not destitute. Given the evidence and materials before the authority at the time of the decision or which reasonably could have been available to the authority if appropriate enquiries had been made, the decision to find that the carer was not destitute and that the claimants were not children in need had been Wednesbury unreasonable.

Personal injury – Liability – Breach of duty – Relevancy – Time bar. Court of Session: Dismissing an action in which the pursuer sought damages for a serious injury he suffered in 1965 when he ran out through school gates and was struck by a motor vehicle, the court held that the facts and circumstances that the pursuer had been able to plead were insufficient in law to found a case of fault on the defender's part, and in any event the action was time barred: the pursuer had not pled a relevant case that he was not aware, and could not reasonably have become aware, of the material facts until a date less than 3 years before action was raised.

Sentencing – Road traffic offences – Drink driving. Sheriff Appeal Court: In an appeal by an appellant who pled guilty to a charge of drink driving and was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment and disqualified for 9 years, discounted to 8 months' imprisonment and 6 years' disqualification to reflect the guilty plea, the court allowed the appeal against the imposition of a custodial term of 8 months as the maximum sentence available to the sheriff in respect of the offence under s 5(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 was 6 months, but refused the appeal against the imposition of a custodial sentence and substituted and a period of 4 months' imprisonment, duly discounted from a headline sentence of 6 months; it further held that the period of disqualification of 6 years fell to be increased by the appropriate extension period in terms of s 35C(2) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, ie a period equal to half the sentence of imprisonment, namely 2 months.

Data protection – Processing of information. The judge had not erred in dismissing the appellant's claim against the Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) for damages for unlawful processing of sensitive personal data, contrary to his rights under the Data Protection Act 1998. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, also held that the Employment Appeals Tribunal had not erred in remitting the appellant's unfair dismissal claim, as it had not been satisfied that the employment tribunal had given proper consideration the risk that SOCA might send information from the disciplinary process back to the police which might then be used against the appellant in criminal proceedings.

Auditor – Negligence. The claimant company had proved its losses based on its counterfactual, in which the defendant had acted as a competent auditor, and had not mitigated any loss which had been caused by the defendant. Although the Commercial Court found the claimant was contributorily negligent, including by the dishonesty of the claimant's senior management and its failure to look after its own interests, it refused the defendant's application for relief from liability under s 1157 of the Companies Act 2006, as it had not acted reasonably.

Social security – Personal independence payments. The Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber)(the tribunal) had been right in its interpretation of the Personal Independence Payment (Transitional Provisions) Regulations, SI 2013/387. It was accepted that the appellant was a 'transfer claimant' and reg 17 was clear. It applied to all 'transfer claimants'. Regulation 3(5) brought a person in the appellant's position (notifying the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions of a change of circumstances) within the definition of a 'transfer claimant'. Consequently, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, among other things, dismissed the appellant's appeal against the tribunal's decision that the plain language of the relevant regulations meant that her award for personal independence payments (PIP), following a previous claim for disability living allowance, could not be effective from the date of her PIP claim.

Criminal law – False accounting. The prosecution's appeal against a judge's ruling, upholding a no case submission in respect of the defendant former employees of Tesco Stores Ltd who had been charged with fraud and false accounting, was dismissed. Among other things, the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that, applying settled law to the facts, the judge at the retrial had rightly decided that there was no case to answer and that it was not seriously arguable that he had committed any error or had acted unreasonably. Accordingly, the court directed that the defendants be acquitted.

Practice – Extension of time. The claimants' applications to extend time to register their claims so as to fall within the scope of a group litigation order were allowed. Accordingly, the Queen's Bench Division extended time for registration of claims, arising from the claimants' inhalation of harmful dust and fumes while employed in the steel industry, to 7 February 2019.