Dockets / page 3
Latest documents
-
Case: Issues. Case ID: UKSC 2023/0062
Issues:Whether the current test for an account of profits (where an individual has to pay back money earned due to a breach of a duty) should be changed?Facts:The appellants were directors of a company and as a result owed special duties to the company. In breach of those duties, the appellants took a business opportunity away from the company. The appellants were ordered to repay to the company the profits that it made from this business opportunity. The appellants dispute the need to repay their profits to the company, and how the profits to be repaid should be calculated.
-
Case: Issues. Case ID: UKSC 2023/0076
Issues: Can the Public and Commercial Services Union ("PCS") enforce a contractual term offering the facility for "check-off arrangements", whereby employees' trade union subscriptions are deducted directly from their salaries through the payroll system and then paid to PCS? Facts: These are three appeals involving persons employed by the Home Office, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs ("DEFRA") or the Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs ("HMRC"). The employees are members of the appellant trade union, PCS. They paid their trade union subscriptions by means of "check-off arrangements" whereby the subscriptions were deducted directly from their salaries through the payroll system and then paid to PCS. The Home Office, DEFRA and HMRC withdrew these check-off arrangements at various dates in 2014 and 2015. The employees brought claims against their employers. PCS was also a claimant. In each of the three cases, the High Court held that: the check-off arrangements were a term of the employees' contracts of employment; the employees had not accepted any variation of their contracts by continuing to work after the check-off arrangements were withdrawn and had not waived any prior breaches of their contractual rights; and PCS was entitled to enforce the term by reason of section 1 of the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999. The Home Office, DEFRA and HMRC appealed to the Court of Appeal on issues (ii) and (iii), where all three cases were considered together. The Court of Appeal agreed with the High Court that the employees had not accepted the variation of their contracts by continuing to work. However, by a majority, it held that section 1 of the 1999 Act did not give PCS the right to enforce the term offering the facility for the check-off arrangements. PCS now appeals to the Supreme Court.
-
Case: Issues. Case ID: UKSC 2023/0077
Issues: Can the Public and Commercial Services Union ("PCS") enforce a contractual term offering the facility for "check-off arrangements", whereby employees' trade union subscriptions are deducted directly from their salaries through the payroll system and then paid to PCS? Facts: These are three appeals involving persons employed by the Home Office, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs ("DEFRA") or the Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs ("HMRC"). The employees are members of the appellant trade union, PCS. They paid their trade union subscriptions by means of "check-off arrangements" whereby the subscriptions were deducted directly from their salaries through the payroll system and then paid to PCS. The Home Office, DEFRA and HMRC withdrew these check-off arrangements at various dates in 2014 and 2015. The employees brought claims against their employers. PCS was also a claimant. In each of the three cases, the High Court held that: the check-off arrangements were a term of the employees' contracts of employment; the employees had not accepted any variation of their contracts by continuing to work after the check-off arrangements were withdrawn and had not waived any prior breaches of their contractual rights; and PCS was entitled to enforce the term by reason of section 1 of the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999. The Home Office, DEFRA and HMRC appealed to the Court of Appeal on issues (ii) and (iii), where all three cases were considered together. The Court of Appeal agreed with the High Court that the employees had not accepted the variation of their contracts by continuing to work. However, by a majority, it held that section 1 of the 1999 Act did not give PCS the right to enforce the term offering the facility for the check-off arrangements. PCS now appeals to the Supreme Court.
-
Case: Issues. Case ID: UKSC 2023/0075
Issues: Can the Public and Commercial Services Union ("PCS") enforce a contractual term offering the facility for "check-off arrangements", whereby employees' trade union subscriptions are deducted directly from their salaries through the payroll system and then paid to PCS? Facts: These are three appeals involving persons employed by the Home Office, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs ("DEFRA") or the Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs ("HMRC"). The employees are members of the appellant trade union, PCS. They paid their trade union subscriptions by means of "check-off arrangements" whereby the subscriptions were deducted directly from their salaries through the payroll system and then paid to PCS. The Home Office, DEFRA and HMRC withdrew these check-off arrangements at various dates in 2014 and 2015. The employees brought claims against their employers. PCS was also a claimant. In each of the three cases, the High Court held that: the check-off arrangements were a term of the employees' contracts of employment; the employees had not accepted any variation of their contracts by continuing to work after the check-off arrangements were withdrawn and had not waived any prior breaches of their contractual rights; and PCS was entitled to enforce the term by reason of section 1 of the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999. The Home Office, DEFRA and HMRC appealed to the Court of Appeal on issues (ii) and (iii), where all three cases were considered together. The Court of Appeal agreed with the High Court that the employees had not accepted the variation of their contracts by continuing to work. However, by a majority, it held that section 1 of the 1999 Act did not give PCS the right to enforce the term offering the facility for the check-off arrangements. PCS now appeals to the Supreme Court.
-
Case: Issues. Case ID: UKSC 2023/0085
Issues: Facts:
-
Case: Issues. Case ID: UKSC 2023/0121
Issues:Facts:
-
Case: Issues. Case ID: UKSC 2023/0063
Issues: Whether, under a contract of property insurance, the assured can have an insurable interest in property forming part of a bulk where the bulk itself is unidentified. Facts: Quadra purchased cargoes of grain (the Cargoes) from (i) Agri Finance SA and (ii) Linepuzzle Ltd and stored them in three grain elevators in Ukraine. Agri Finance, Linepuzzle and the operators/owners of the elevators were all owned by companies in the Agroinvestgroup. The delivery and storage of each of the Cargoes in the elevators was evidenced by warehouse receipts issued to Quadra. The Cargoes were stored at the elevators mixed with other grain (rather than on a segregated basis). In January 2019, it transpired that the Agroinvestgroup companies were operating a large-scale fraud issuing multiple warehouse receipts to different traders for the same grain. As a result, the warehouse receipts stating that the elevators held grain on behalf of a person (such as Quadra) did not correspond to any grain (either because that grain did not exist or because another party held title to that grain). The effect was that multiple parties holding fraudulent warehouse receipts ended up laying claim to the same grain. Quadra made a claim under its marine insurance policy. It claimed an indemnity in respect of the Cargoes. XL Insurance argued that there was no property in which Quadra could show an insurable interest. The High Court found that Quadra could claim under its policy. XL Insurance appealed but the Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the High Court. XL Insurance now appeals to the Supreme Court.
-
Case: Issues. Case ID: UKSC 2023/0059
Issues: In the circumstances, did the Court of Appeal err in finding that the police did not owe road users a duty of care to protect them from harm, either on the basis that their presence at the scene made the situation worse or that they assumed a responsibility to protect road users? Facts: The following facts are assumed for the purpose of the appeal. On 4 March 2014, Mr Kendall’s car skidded on a patch of black ice on the A413 road, causing him to lose control and roll over into a ditch. Concerned by the state of the road, after making an emergency call, he stood by the road signalling cars to slow down. Around 20 minutes later, police officers attended the scene. They started clearing up debris from the accident and put up a "Police Slow" sign up. After warning the police about the dangerous state of the road, Mr Kendall left to visit the hospital to tend for non-life-threatening injuries he had suffered. It is alleged that, but for the arrival of the police, Mr Kendell would have continued attempts to alert road users of the danger. Having cleared the debris, and after Mr Kendall had gone to hospital, the police officers removed the "Police Slow" sign and left the scene, with the road in the same condition as it had been previously. They did so in the belief that there was no hazard and having failed to discover or inspect the sheet ice. About an hour after the first accident, at 5.45am Mr Malcom Tindall was killed in a second accident when his car was hit by an oncoming vehicle which had skidded on the ice (the driver, Mr Bird, was also killed). The Appellant, widow and administratix of the estate of Mr Tindall, brought a claim against the Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police, the Respondent, alleging the police's conduct at the scene of the accident was negligent and that the Chief Constable is vicariously liable. The Chief Constable applied to strike out the Appellant's claim as disclosing no reasonable cause of action or, alternatively, for summary judgment. The application failed at first instance but succeeded on appeal before the Court of Appeal. The Appellant now appeals to the Supreme Court.
-
Case: Issues. Case ID: UKSC 2023/0092
Issues: Facts:
-
Case: Issues. Case ID: UKSC 2023/0056
Issues: The correct approach to remedy breaches by the Home Office of their statutory duty to consider children in immigration applications and whether that approach varies across different parts of the UK. Facts: CAO sought asylum in the UK accompanied by two children. Her case is that she faced domestic violence at the hands of her husband on return to Nigeria and her daughter would be subject to FGM. The Secretary of State for the Home Department ('SSHD') did not accept her account of domestic abuse or find it plausible that her daughter was at risk of FGM. CAO appealed to the First-Tier Tribunal ('FTT'). The FTT judge accepted CAO had been subject to domestic abuse but found that she had not established she was subject to abuse after she moved around Nigeria or that her father-in-law could locate her. She did not prove that CAO's husband wanted to subject the daughter to FGM. The FTT upheld the Secretary of State's decision. The Upper Tribunal ('UT') upheld the decision of the FTT. The Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland found that the FTT and the UT had failed to remedy the SSHD's failure to take into account the best interests of CAO's children as required by section 55(3) of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009. The Court of Appeal highlighted that there were different approaches to this legislation in different parts of the UK. The Court of Appeal set aside the decision of the UT and sent the case back to the FTT to reconsider. The SSHD appeals to the Supreme Court.