Criminal law Harassment. The defence of insanity was available for a defendant charged with an offence of harassment, contrary to the . Accordingly, the Divisional Court allowed the appellant's appeal by way of case stated against the decision of the Crown Court that, as a matter of law, the defence of insanity was not available for an offence of harassment.
Restraint of trade by agreement Employer and employee. The claimants were granted injunctive relief against the first four defendants in respect of restrictive covenants contained in their service agreements pending trial and also springboard relief for alleged breach of their duties under the contracts, by creating a competing business. However, the Queen's Bench Division refused the claimants' applications for orders for disclosure.
Human rights Right to respect for private and family life. The policy governing the use of criminal records and the disclosure obligation in the (Exceptions) Order 1975, , so far as it concerned low-level historical reprimands, were in violation of art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Divisional Court held that the decision to refuse the claimant employment as a service support officer, solely for a 2007 reprimand, had been unlawful as it had applied the pre-May 2013 law to a post-May 2013 situation and had breached art 8.
Employment Contract of employment. The clause relied on by the employee in her contract did prohibit shareholdings in any business carried on in competition with the former employer and was impermissibly wide and in restraint of trade unless it could be severed in some way. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division held that the clause was however, a single covenant which had to read as a whole and could not be severed.
Employment Discrimination. The Employment Appeal Tribunal partly allowed the employer's appeal against a decision that its cap on a redundancy scheme had been discriminatory on the grounds of age, whereby payments would not be available for those aged65 and over, who had an immediate entitlement to an occupational pension. The employment tribunal had failed to demonstrate a holistic approach to its assessment of the means adopted by the employer to achieve the various legitimate aims in the present case.
Employment Contract of employment. The Chancery Division allowed the claimant company's application for an injunction to enforce an employee restrictive covenant. The nature of the interests that it was desired to protect was capable of justifying a restraint and, judged by the defendant's status as a consultant, not partner, the non-compete clause was not wider than reasonably required for the protection of the claimant's interests.
Injunction Interim. The Chancery Division dismissed the claimant company's application for, among other things, an interim injunction prohibiting the defendants from dealing with its named customers and suppliers and an unlimited injunction preventing the defendants from using or disclosing its confidential information. While, on the evidence, there was a serious issue to be tried, the case was largely built on inference and did not establish that the claimant was likely to establish sufficient misuse of its data to justify granting a 'springboard' injunction at trial.
*R (on the application of P) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and another and other cases
Police Disclosure of information. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, considered a number of appeals involving individuals with previous criminal convictions-cautions-reprimands, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, the Chief Constable of Surrey Police and the Secretaries of State for Justice and the Home Department. A number of determinations were made in relation to the statutory scheme in relation to the disclosure of convictions and the retention in individual cases by the police of caution, reprimands and other material, and whether the revised scheme complies with art8 of the European Convention of Human Rights.
Asklepios Kliniken Langen-Seligenstadt GmbH v Felja; Asklepios Dienstleistungsgesellschaft mbH v Graf
Preliminary ruling concerning interpretation of EU laws in proceedings relating to application of collective labour agreement . The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art3 of Council Directive (EC)2001-23 and art16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in proceedings concerning the application of a collective labour agreement.
Redundancy Dismissal by reason of redundancy. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division dismissed an appeal by the employer NHS Trust against a decision that the employee was entitled to pension at a higher rate on the basis of the date of the termination of her contract of employment. The court held that the letter of dismissal had to be actually communicated to the employee before it took effect and that was when she opened the letter and read the contents.