A former employee was entitled to damages for psychiatric injury and consequential loss and damage that she suffered as a result of harassment and bullying by her fellow employees. The behaviour of the fellow employees was within the scope of their employment, and closely connected to their work to give rise to vicarious liability, and in any event the employer was in breach of its duty of care to the employee in failing to take any adequate steps to protect her from such behaviour.
|
Control orders that purported to be non-derogating were as a matter of fact derogating control orders. The obligations imposed in those orders amounted a deprivation of liberty contrary to Art.5 of ECHR and the judge had jurisdiction to quash the orders.
|
Reviews by the court of the making of non-derogating control orders by the secretary of state, under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 s.3, complied with Art.6(1) of ECHR.
|
Proof - Reparation Accident at Work
The pursuer claimed damages in respect of an injury he alleged he sustained at work on 19 June 2002 when he was attempting to change a piece of equipment attached to a crane, known as a "dog". Quantum was agreed at £6,000. The pursuer's case against the defenders was founded on the common law and on Regulation 4(1) and (2) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998. Regulations 4(1) and (2) provide:- "(1) Every employer shall ensure that work equipment is so constructed or adapt ...
|
Transfer of Undertakings: Transfer
Was there a transfer of an undertaking when company A acquired the shares in company B and then ran it so as to facilitate the interrelationship of the two companies to their mutual benefit? The Employment Tribunal held that there was there was more than a simple share sale. The new controllers had effectively brought the two operations under one umbrella. Accordingly, the employer had changed notwithstanding that there had been no formal transfer of the business. The EAT upheld the appeal and t ...
|
The Court of Appeal held that the judge had been entitled to find that the Claimant property developer had proprietary estoppel against it. The Court also held that the judge had been entitled to grant the developer a lien for 50% of the increase in value of a property. Other options such as reimbursement would not be adequate compensation and putting a value on the loss of the contract would be too speculative.
|
Breach of Duty. The Claimant company represented the interest of Mohammed al Fayed in the majority stake he acquired in Fulham Football club. The solicitors who prepared the documentation included various clauses to protect the dilution of the minority stake of the former owners. During the acquisition process a clause relating to limits on this dilution once the Claimant had provided finance of £60 million. In order to achieve overall control, the Claimant bought out the minority share-holders ...
|
In making an award of damages for personal injury following a road traffic accident the judge had been entitled to find on the evidence that the claimant's post concussional syndrome would ameliorate over time and that the claimant had failed to prove that he was suffering from a rare form of double vision.
|
On the evidence, the psychiatric injury suffered by an employee had not been reasonably foreseeable to the local authority employer and there had been no justification for imposing a cause of action for breach of statutory duty in respect of the Working Time Regulations 1998 reg.4.
|
An appeal was dismissed against a decision disallowing amendments to an entitlement claim outside the limitation period in s.37(5) of the Patents Act 1977. The amendment added a claim to sole ownership of the patent, where the existing claim was to joint ownership. The special interpretation provision in s.130(7) provided that s.37(5) had the same meaning as Art 23 of the Community Patent Convention as to the bringing of entitlement claims out of time, and it did not matter that the CPC had no ...
|
| 1 |