REUTERS | Darren Staples

In brief for week ending 4 May 2016

Make sure that you have not missed a key development in your area of the law by reading our In brief review of the latest Practical Law Local Government email.

Central government:

  • The House of Commons Library has published a briefing paper on the EU referendum campaign.
  • The Cabinet Office has published guidance setting out the different categories of the UK’s public bodies in a public bodies handbook.

Civil litigation:

  • The Court of Appeal has:
    • considered the statements of case in a group litigation order claim and criticised both parties for pleading only in very general terms and failing to set out the relevant facts. As a result, the court excluded a number of issues from the scope of the appeal on the basis that they were new or unpleaded (The Prudential Assurance Company Ltd v HMRC); and
    • allowed a company’s appeal against findings of fact in proceedings concerning an employee’s entitlement to a contractual termination payment. The judgment provides useful guidance on the court’s approach to appeals on the facts (Elliston v Glencore Services (UK) Ltd).
  • The Lord Chief Justice has issued a discussion paper on the defendant’s duty of candour and disclosure in judicial review proceedings.
  • The Council on General Affairs and Policy of the Hague Conference on Private International Law has established a Special Commission to prepare a draft convention on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments.
  • The Law Society has published a survey on the new bill of costs and J-codes.


Employment and pensions:

  • The Trade Union Bill 2015-16 has had its third reading in the House of Lords, and the amendments made by the Lords have been debated in the House of Commons.
  • The Posted Workers (Enforcement of Employment Rights) Regulations 2016 have been made and will come into force on 18 June 2016. The regulations will give construction workers posted to the UK the right to bring a claim for unlawful deduction of wages in the employment tribunal against the contractor immediately above their employer, if their employer fails to pay them the national minimum wage.
  • The EAT has:
    • upheld an employment tribunal finding that Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights was not engaged when an employer used for disciplinary purposes material seized by the police in the course of a criminal investigation (Garamukanwa v Solent NHS Trust); and
    • held that an employment tribunal incorrectly applied the relevant tests when refusing to accept a claim for unfair dismissal and race discrimination presented two days out of time (Adams v British Telecommunications Plc).
  • BIS has launched a consultation seeking views on the transparency of tips, gratuities, cover and service charges.

FOI and data protection:

  • The Article 29 Working Party has published an Opinion 01/2016 on the EU-US Privacy Shield draft adequacy decision and a Working Document 01/2016 on European Essential Guarantees.
  • The Home Office has published the government’s response to the review of the surveillance camera code of practice.



  • The House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts has published a report on the government’s plans for financing the right to buy extension.

Property and planning:

Public procurement:

  • The ECJ has handed down a judgment annulling the decisions of the European Union Intellectual Property Office in rejecting a tender and awarding the contract to three other tenderers in relation to a software development and maintenance contract (European Dynamics v European Union Intellectual Property Office).

Regulation and enforcement:

  • The Court of Appeal has:
    • refused an appeal against conviction on the grounds that a drafting error on the indictment did not make the conviction automatically unsafe (R v AD); and
    • held that although it could not be determined whether a Scottish warning should result in a defendant receiving a bad character direction, it did not make a conviction unsafe if defence counsel declined to request that the judge provide a good character direction (R v Mittal).
Practical Law In brief

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *