*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.

*Eweida and others v United Kingdom (App. Nos. 48420/10, 59842/10, 51671/10 and 36516/10)

Human rights Religion. The European Court of Human Rights awarded 2,000 to an employee who had been required not to display a religious cross by her employer, an airline. It ruled that the interference with the employee's right to manifest her religion under art 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights was disproportionate despite the legitimate aim of her employer (in the form of its uniform policy). The Court dismissed a similar claim by a nurse because the hospital's health and safety policy was a stronger justification for the interference than the airline's uniform policy. It also dismissed claims for breaches of art 9 by a registrar who did not want to preside over civil partnerships and a relationship counsellor who disapproved of same-sex relationships; in the particular cases the legitimate aim of preventing discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation outweighed the right of the applicants to manifest their religious beliefs under art 9.

Konica Minolta Business Solutions (UK) Ltd v Applegate and others

Pension Pension Scheme. The Chancery Division held, at a preliminary hearing, that an order for rectification of the rules of the claimant company's pension scheme would not cause the scheme to contravene the requirements of s74 of the .

Sarjeant and others v Rigid Group Ltd

Pension Pensions schemes. Following the winding up of two pensions schemes and in considering the question of the employer's debt under s75 of the the Chancery Division held that the rules of the schemes, properly construed, permitted the trustees to effect a buy out in stages, so that they could interpose the fixing of the applicable time in the manner described.

Taddese v Abusabib and another

Employment Sex discrimination. The employee, a domestic servant, had brought a claim, inter alia, for direct discrimination and harassment against her employer, who was a diplomat. On the whole, the employee had been successful in her claim. The employer appealed against the tribunal's decision claiming diplomatic immunity. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in dismissing the appeal, held that the employer did not have diplomatic immunity in respect of the employee's claim as the employer had contended.

Mohammed (trading as Mohammed & Co Solicitors) v Jackson

Employment tribunal Procedure. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) allowed the employer firm of solicitors' appeal against the employment tribunal's decision that the employer had victimised the employee. The EAT took the view that the tribunal had failed to give adequate reasons for its decision.

Entrust Pension Ltd v Prospect Hospice Ltd and another

Pension Pension scheme. The Chancery Division previously gave judgment finding that the previous trustee of a pension scheme had had a duty to consider adding a share of surplus in respect of a deferred member's pension at the date when the member left service. The trustee of the scheme sought the court's determination on outstanding issues. The court held that the previous trustee had complied with that duty for most of the relevant period and ruled on the date on which a new policy had been implemented.

Pensions Ombudsman v EMC Europe Ltd and others

Pension Pension scheme. D, a member of an occupational pension scheme administered by the first and second defendant companies, made a complaint to the claimant Pensions Ombudsman seeking to have a compromise agreement, reached between the three defendants and the trustees of the scheme in respect of the winding-up of the scheme, set aside. The Ombudsman made a reference pursuant to s150(7) of the . The Chancery Division determined that the Ombudsman was not able to assume jurisdiction for D's complaint.