Riezniece v Zemkopibas minisrija and another

European Union Employment. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of Council Directive (EEC) 76-207 (on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions), as amended by Directive 2002-73-EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and of the Framework Agreement on Parental Leave, contained in the Annex to Council Directive (EC) 96-34 (on the framework agreement on parental leave concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC, as amended by Council Directive (EC) 97-75. The request had been made in proceedings between the Ministry of Agriculture and the Rural Support Service concerning her dismissal following her return to work after taking parental leave.

Telfer v Sakellarios

Income tax Pay as you earn system. The defendant, who was from Greece, was a director and the only shareholder of a company (the company) which carried on business in the UK, of which the claimant was a director and, until a certain date, an employee.The defendant agreed that the claimant would have an interest in the company and, accordingly, a deed was signed which required the defendant to make a series of payments to the claimant. The claimant brought proceedings claiming payment under the deed. The issue was whether the payments under the deed were payments of employment income and whether the defendant had sufficient tax presence in the UK to be obliged to deduct tax. The Chancery Division, in dismissing the claim, held that the payments were employment income from which the defendant had been obliged to deduct tax.

Ippoma v Bakers Food & Allied Workers Union

Unfair dismissal Determination whether dismissal fair or unfair. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) allowed the employer union's appeal against the decision of the employment tribunal that the employee had been unfairly dismissed. The EAT took the view that the tribunal's failure to ask and answer certain relevant questions meant that the tribunal's decision had not been compliant with the requirement to give proper reasons for a decision.

Barden v Commodities Research Unit International (Holdings) Ltd and other companies

Employment Contract of service. The claimant was the former CEO of the defendant company. On his retirement, he was to be paid a sum under an agreement. An issue arose as to whether PAYE should be deducted from the payment to be made under the agreement. The Chancery Division held that the agreement, properly construed, meant that the sum should be paid to the claimant net of any PAYE due from him as a result of the payment.

Fluorsid SpA and another company v European Commission

European Union Rules on competition. The General Court of the European Union ruled on an application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 3043 of 25 June 2008 relating to a proceeding under art 81 EC Treaty and art 53 of the European Economic Area Agreement (COMP-39.180 Aluminium fluoride), concerning a worldwide pricefixing and market-sharing cartel on the world aluminium fluoride market and, in the alternative, reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants.

Kimti v Tyne & Wear Fire & Rescue Authority

Redundancy Dismissal by reason of redundancy. The Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) considered an employee's appeal against the finding of the employment tribunal that she had not been unfairly dismissed, and that her dismissal had not been the result of racial discrimination. The EAT held, in dismissing the appeal, that the tribunal had not erred in law, and that it had been entitled to conclude that the dismissal had not been unfair.

White Digital Media Ltd v Weaver and another

Injunction Interlocutory. The claimant was the publisher of an online magazine that was funded through paid advertisements. The first defendant was an employee of the claimant who purchased a competing business. The claimant purported to rely on restrictive covenants imposed upon the first defendant and also claimed that the defendants should be restrained from using confidential information that had been obtained by the first defendant whilst employed by the claimant. The Queen's Bench Division refused to grant interim injunctions in the claimant's favour because: (i) the restrictive covenants were unenforceable, and (ii) the information which was claimed to be confidential had not been sufficiently identified.

*Mehjoo v Harben Barker (a firm) and another company

Accountant Negligence. The claimant sought damages against his accountants for failing to advise him of steps to eliminate or reduce his liability for capital gains tax. The Queen's Bench Division, in allowing his claim, held that the defendants had breached their contractual and tortious duties to advise the claimant to obtain specialist tax advice.

Woodhouse v West North West Homes Leeds Ltd

Unfair dismissal Victimisation. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (the EAT) allowed the employee's appeal in respect of claims for unfair dismissal and victimisation. While the employment tribunal had found the dismissal unfair they had made a Polkey deduction of 90 %. The EAT held that the only proper conclusion was that the employee had been victimised by his suspension and dismissal and that finding would be substituted for the finding of the tribunal. Accordingly, the EAT further held that the 'Polkey' reduction had become unsustainable.

Graham v Aramark Ltd

Unfair dismissal Compensation. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (the EAT) dismissed the employer's appeal against an award for future loss and a costs award made against it in circumstances where the employment tribunal had found in favour of the employee on the issue of constructive dismissal. The EAT decided that there had been no error of law on the part of the tribunal in its decision in respect of those two awards.