Divorce Financial provision. A wife began proceedings for divorce and a financial remedy order. She suspected that her husband had property in Jordan and asked him for disclosure. He denied the allegation and a consent order on financial provision was granted. The wife discovered later that the husband did have property in Jordan. She applied for permission to appeal against a consent order. The Family Division, in allowing the application, held that, whilst non-disclosure did not mean that a consent order previously granted should be set aside, in the present case, there was evidence of potentially significant non-disclosure and the wife's appeal had a realistic prospect of success.
Divorce Appeal. Post divorce, the husband had refused an open offer of settlement from the wife. As a result, the judge in effect dismissed his application for financial remedy. The husband sought permission to appeal and that was refused on the basis that his appeal had no reasonable prospect of success.
Discrimination Employment. The employee appealed against a decision of the employment tribunal, which dismissed his claim of indirect age discrimination. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in allowing the employee's appeal, determined that the tribunal had erred in law in its approach to the question of 'particular disadvantage' for the purposes of s19(2)(b) of the . Further, it had not given reasons which complied with Meek v City of Birmingham District Council IRLR 250, for its conclusion as to whether the provision, criterion or practice which the employer had applied had been a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, for the purposes of s19(2)(d) of the Act.
Negligence Duty to take care. The claimant was seriously injured when his bicycle was struck by a police car. In the course of the claimant's action for damages against the defendant Metropolitan Police Commissioner, the Queen's Bench Division considered liability for the accident. On the evidence, the police car had struck the claimant from behind and had been driven without such care and skill as had been reasonable in all the circumstances, and, but for the breach of duty, the injury to the claimant would not have occurred. In the circumstances, the defendant was liable for the accident.
Family provision Property available for financial provision. The proceedings concerned preliminary questions which related to the husband and wife's respective interests in three properties. The Family Division, having considered the evidence and authority on resulting and constructive trusts, made findings as to each of the three properties.
Employment Contract of service. The employee brought claims before the employment tribunal for, among other things, breach of an implied term to notify her of her pension rights. The tribunal dismissed the claim. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, dismissing the employee's appeal, held that the tribunal had made a factual decision on the question of reasonableness of the steps taken by the employers to inform their staff of their pensions rights which had not been perverse or erroneous in law.
European Union Employment. In determining the level of pension to which the employee, a retired part-time recorder, was entitled, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the employee's rights in respect of the level of his pension had begun with the date for the transposition of Council Directive (EC) 97-81 (concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC) into domestic law, namely 7 April 2000. The employee could not rely on the accrual of pension rights before that date, because he had enjoyed no such rights at that time, save in respect of any period needed for qualifying for access to a pension.
Police Pensions. The claimant's father was a police officer and she was conceived before, but born after, his death. The defendant Metropolitan Police Commissioner refused to pay the claimant a child allowance, under the Police Pensions Regulations 1987, , as she had been born after her father's death and her parents had not been married. The claimant issued proceedings, contending that such discrimination was unlawful. The Queen's Bench Division, in allowing the claim, held that the discrimination in question could not be justified on objective and reasonable grounds. Accordingly, it declared that the claimant was entitled to an ordinary allowance under the Regulations.
Pension Pension scheme. The Chancery Division construed a deed of adherence in relation to the Honda Group UK Pension Scheme. The court dismissed the employers' claim for a declaration that would have meant that the benefit scale for certain employees would be less generous in certain respects than the benefit scale provided for other employees and where the additional cost of providing benefits would be around 47m.
Pension Pension scheme. The claimant company sought a declaration as to the construction of an amendment in the governing provisions of an occupational pension scheme. The Chancery Division, in allowing the application, held that the amendment would be interpreted as raising the normal retirement date of female members of the scheme from 60 to 65.