Thomas v Samurai Incentives & Promotions Ltd

Employment Discrimination. The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the appeal of a female employee to amend her claim to include a claim for sexual harassment would be allowed. The employee had made a money claim, but had not included or identified her discrimination claim in her ET1. She later sent details of the harassment to the employment tribunal.

Lord Inglewood and others v European Parliament

European Union Pension. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the actions in two joint cases brought by members of the European Parliament, namely Lord Inglewood and others, against the European Parliament. Those members had sought: (i) a declaration that the decision of 1 April 2009, making changes to the rules of their pension scheme, had been unlawful; and (ii) an annulment of the contested decisions giving effect to those changes.

*Wheels Common Investment Fund Trustees Ltd and other companies v Revenue and Customs Commissioners

European Union Value added tax. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art 13B(d)(6) of Sixth Council Directive (EEC) 77-388 (on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment) and art 135(1)(g) of Council Directive (EC) 2006-112 (on the common system of value added tax). The request had been made by the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (England and Wales) in proceedings between Wheels Common Investment Fund Trustees Ltd (Wheels) and others and the Revenue and Customs Commissioners (England and Wales) concerning the latter's refusal to exempt fund management services supplied to Wheels and others from VAT.

Rowstock Ltd and another v Jessemey and another

Employment Unfair dismissal. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (the EAT) allowed the appeal of the employer against the failure of the employment tribunal (the tribunal) to make any deduction in the compensation awarded to reflect the likelihood of the employee, who had been dismissed one year after he had turned 65, being fairly dismissed had the correct procedures been followed. The employee cross-appealed from the rejection of the victimisation claim and the Equality and Human Rights Commission intervened in support of the crossappeal. The EAT held that the judgment of the tribunal in rejecting the employee's post-employment victimisation case would be upheld and his appeal (actually pursued by way of a cross-appeal) on that point would be dismissed.

Kenny and others v Ministry for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and others

Employment Equality of treatment of men and women. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art 141 EC Treaty and Council Directive (EEC) 75-117 (on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the application of the principle of equal pay for men and women) in proceedings between Margaret Kenny and 13 other civil servants, on the one hand, and the Irish Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and others concerning a difference in pay between the employees in the main proceedings and another group of civil servants.

*BT Pension Scheme v Revenue and Customs Commissioners

European Union Taxation. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) upheld the decision by the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) to accept the claims by the Trustees of the BT Pension Scheme (trustees) that: (i) the absence of a tax credit for foreign income dividends, by reason of s246C of the constituted a prima facie breach of art 56 of the EC Treaty (Free Movement of Capital) (the Treaty) which was not justified; and (ii) s 231(1) of that Act, in restricting tax credits on dividends to dividends received from United Kingdom-resident companies, was a clear breach of art 56 of the Treaty, but to decide that of the Taxes Management Act 1970 applied, with the result that the those claims were time-barred.

*Sivanandan and others v Hackney London Borough

Race relations Discrimination. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the Employment Appeal Tribunal had been correct to find that there had been no error of law in the employment tribunal's remedies decision awarding compensation against the defendant authority, a potential employer, in excess of the amount of compensation that it had awarded to the claimant as against an employee who had been the main discriminator against the claimant.

*John Mander Pension Scheme Trustees Ltd v Revenue and Customs Commissioners

Pension Pension schemes. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) dismissed the appeal of the John Mander Pensions Scheme Trustee Ltd from a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (see ) against two assessments made by the Revenue and Customs Commissioners each in the sum of 475,200 under s591C of the .

*R (on the application of Prudential plc and another) v Special Commissioner of Income Tax and another

Privilege Legal professional privilege. The Supreme Court, in dismissing the claimant companies' appeals, held that legal advice privilege ought not to be extended to communications in connection with advice given by professional people other than lawyers, even where that advice was legal advice which that professional person was qualified to give.

*Fox and others v Bassetlaw District Council

Employment Tribunal Procedure. The employees brought an equal pay claim against the employer in the employment tribunal. Subsequently, they sought to withdraw the original claim and issue a fresh equal pay claim. The employment judge held that as the second claim could and should have been raised in the first claim, the second claim was an abuse of process and the employees were barred from raising it. The Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed the employees' appeal as the judge had plainly been entitled to find that not only could the employees have pursued the second set of claims in the original proceedings, they should have done so.