Hounga v Allen and another

Race relations Discrimination. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the employee's appeal, holding that the employment tribunal's decision, of its own motion, to dismiss the employee's race discrimination claim relating to the currency of her employment because she had not first raised a grievance had been unfair and it had not considered reg11(3)(c) of the (Dispute Resolution) Regulations 2002, SI2004-752. It also allowed the employer's cross-appeal, holding that the employee's previously successful claim for compensation for dismissal on grounds of race discrimination had been barred on the ground that the employment contract had been illegal and the employee's claim had arisen out of, or clearly been connected with, her own conduct in respect of that illegality. Consequently, the employee's discrimination claim was dismissed.

*Procter & Gamble Co v Svenska Cellulosa Aktiebolaget SCA and another company

Employment Continuity. The Chancery Division held that rights to be considered for early retirement benefits and to accrue further service up to 15 years' service transferred under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006, and benefits payable after normal retirement age were old-age benefits, even if paid before age 55.

*Attrill & others v Dresdner Kleinwort Limited and another company

Contract Variation. The Queen's Bench Division held that the first defendant service company for a global investment bank was in breach of contract in failing to pay bonuses in the sums identified in the bonus letters, and each of the claimant employees was entitled to damages for breach of contract.

*Cameron and others v Revenue and Customs Commissioners

Income tax Assessment. The Administrative Court held that the claimant seafarers were entitled in making their tax return to rely on a concession published by the Revenue and Customs Commissions regarding the definition of 'at the end of the day' contained in 378(1) of the Income Tax (Earnings & Pensions) Act 2003.

Akhtar and others v Birmingham City Council

Employment tribunal Procedure. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the employer local authority's appeal, holding that the employees had complied with reg9 of the (Dispute Resolution) Regulations 2004, SI2004-752, in submitting their claims for equal pay.

*Emblaze Mobility Solutions Ltd v Revenue and Customs Commissioners

Set-off Assignment of debt. The Chancery Division held that the respondent Revenue and Customs Commissioners were not permitted to set-off the sum owed by a company in respect of corporation tax and PAYE against the claimant's right as assignee to repayment of VAT input tax.

Stack v Ajar-Tec Ltd

Employment Remuneration. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the Employment Appeal Tribunal had been right to find that employment tribunal had been wrong to rule that the unfair dismissal claim could not proceed on the basis that since no consideration had been agreed between the parties, the claimant was neither an employee or a worker for the purposes of the relevant sections of the .

*Homer v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police

Employment Age discrimination. The Supreme Court held that the employer had committed indirect discrimination where it introduced a requirement to have a degree into a job specification, where the existing employee was unable to complete a part time degree before reaching retirement age. Further, as the tribunals had not considered the question of justification properly, the case would be remitted for the issue of justification to be properly argued.

*Seldon v Clarkson Wright and Jakes

Employment Discrimination. The Supreme Court held that the employee's claim regarding alleged age discrimination would be referred back to the employment tribunal, where it was appropriate that the tribunal decide whether a mandatory age of 65 was a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aims of the solicitors' firm in which the employee had been a partner.

Dr A v HTX

Injunction Principle governing grant. The Queen's Bench Division, in dismissing the claimant doctor's claim, held that the claimant had not made out grounds for the grant of an injunction restraining her employer NHS Trust from referring her case to an ill health panel, in circumstances where the claimant had been excluded from her employment following concerns about her mental health.