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.
|
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 ...
|
To the extent that by reason of not according Civil Partnerships the name ‘marriage’ The Civil Partnership Act 2004 discriminated against same-sex partners, that discrimination had a legitimate aim, was reasonable and proportionate and fell within the margin of appreciation accorded to Convention states.
|
In the circumstances it had not been demonstrated that a local authority's withdrawal of its pre-action admission of liability was either an abuse of the process of the court or was otherwise likely to obstruct the just disposal of the case within CPR r.3.4(2)(b).
|
| 1 |