In Sullivan v IoW Council (2024) EAT 3 the EAT has held that an ET did not have jurisdiction to hear a whistleblowing claim brought by an external jpb applicant against the local authority . The applicant did not fall within the definition of “worker”.

Competition Appeal Tribunal Direction 1/2024 from the President sets out the general approach to be taken with respect to managing issues related to CONFIDENTIALITY RINGS, whereby the disclosure of  documents which contain SENSITIVE INFORMATION is restricted to specified individuals, usually external or in-house legal representatives or other external advisors or experts.  The Direction applies where the first Case Management Conference in a case, at which a Confidentiality Protocol should be provided,  takes place after 4 January 2024. That approach “permits a degree of pragmatism”. The population of documents for which confidential treatment is sought should be reduced to a “minimum”.

In HXA v SURREY COUNTY COUNCIL and YXA v WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL (2023) UKSC 52 the Supreme Court allows the local authorities’ appeals and holds that the claims should be struck out. These claims were for failing allegedly negligently to protect children from abuse. The Supreme Court holds that the necessary starting point for a negligence claim is a common law duty of care, and there is none such, That is because there had been no assumption of responsibility.

In GLOVER v FLUID STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS (2023) EWHC 3219 (TCC) the Defendant submitted that the claims advanced by the Claimants cannot succeed as a matter of law, and therefore should be struck out, or dismissed summarily, rather than be allowed to go to trial. The Judge set out the proper ambit of and approach to such applications as follows:-

(1) A Court may strike out a claim where, amongst other things, the statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing or defending the claim;
(2) A Court may give summary judgment where: (a) the claimant has no real prospect of succeeding on the claim or issue; and (b) there is no other compelling reason why the case or issue should be disposed of at a trial;
(3) Where applications are made to strike out under the CPR as disclosing “no reasonable grounds” for bringing the claim and, in the alternative, for summary judgment, there is no difference between the tests to be applied;
(4) Proper grounds for strike out and for summary judgment exist where the facts of the case, do not, even if true, amount in law to a defence to the claim;
(5) However, it is generally not appropriate to strike out a claim on assumed facts in an area of developing jurisprudence;
(6) Proper grounds for summary judgment include that on current evidence a claim has no realistic prospects of success and there is no additional evidence that can reasonably be expected to be available at trial (including any oral testimony) that is likely to add to or alter the evidence that will be available to a trial judge and so affect the outcome of the case; (7) However, the Court should not conduct a mini-trail on disputed evidence.

In CHURCHILL v MERTHYR TYDFIL CBC ( 2023 ) EWCA Civ 1416 the Court of Appeal says that a Court may lawfully stay Court proceedings for, or Order, the parties to engage in a non-Court based Dispute Resolution Process, provided that the Order made (1) does not impair the very essence of the Claimant’s right to proceed to a judicial hearing and (2) is proportionate to achieving the legitimate aim of settling the dispute fairly, quickly and at reasonable cost. The Court declined to lay down principles as to what will be relevant in determining the question of a stay of proceedings or an Order that the parties engage in a non-court based dispute resolution procedure. The kind of non-court based dispute resolution procedure in issue was an internal Complaints Procedure operated by the local authority to which the Claimant was not contractually bound.

The general rule in civil cases is that a party must challenge by cross-examination evidence of any witness of an opposing party on a material point which he or she claims should not be accepted by the Trial Judge. This applies not only to witnesses of fact, and/or where the character of the witness is impugned, but also, the Supreme Court says in TUI v GRIFFITHS ( 2023) UKSC 48 to expert witnesses. This however is not a rigid requirement. It depends upon the circumstances of each case. The question is whether, taken as a whole, the trial is fair. The Supreme Court gives non-exclusive instances in which this requirement may be relaxed.

WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL AND OTHERS v LONDON GYPSIES AND TRAVELLERS ( 2023 ) UKSC 47 concers Injunctions obtained by local authorities to prevent unlawful encampments by Gypsies and Travellers. The Supreme Court holds that the Courts have power to grant “ Newcomer Injunctions .” “ Newcomers “ are persons who are unknown and unidentified at the date of the grant of the Injunction, and who have not yet performed, or even threatened to perform, the acts which the Injunction prohibits. However, the Supreme Court says that the power should be exercised only in circumstances where there is a compelling need to protect civil rights or to enforce public law that is not met by any other available remedies. In addition, “ Newcomer Injunctions “ should be made subject to procedural safeguards to protect newcomers’ rights.

In general, Judicial Review remedies are forward looking. They are for where the public authority does not remedy the breach itself. Generally, the function of Judicial Review is not to conduct an inquest into whether or not the authority is culpable for an unsatisfactory situation. In R ( KENT COUNTY COUNCIL ) v SSHD ( 2023 ) EWHC 3030 ( Admin ) Chamberlain j adds, at para 31, that, in some situations, it may be difficult to form a view about the  lawfulness of an authority’s present conduct without at least some understanding of the lawfulness of past conduct.

I R ( IAB ) v SSHD (2023) EWHC 2930 (Admin) Swift J gave guidance on the Duty of Candour and on the procedure to be adopted by a party who wishes documents in Judicial Review proceedings to be redacted so as not to disclose the names of employees and/or contractors. The Duty of Candour is an obligation of explanation, rather than simply an obligation to disclose. It exists to ensure that the reasoning process underlying a challenged decision is explained. Disclosure of relevant material is required when it is necessary for the fair and just determination of an issue in the case. A person disclosing a redacted document should fully and succinctly explain at the point of disclosure the reason for the redaction and do so in a witness statement.

Limitation periods for bringing claims are set out in the Limitation Act 1980. The commencement of the period is postponed when any fact relevant to the right of action has been “deliberately concealed” from the claimant by the defendant. “Deliberate concealment” includes when there is a “deliberate commission of a breach of duty” in circumstances in which it is unlikely to be discovered for some time. The meaning of “deliberately” and “concealed” in this context are clarified by the Supreme Court in CANADA SQUARE OPERATIONS LIMITED v POTTER (2023) UKSC 41.

The Supreme Court holds that a fact will have been “concealed” if the defendant has kept it secret from the claimant, either by taking active steps to hide it or by failing to disclose it. Contrary to previous Court of Appeal authority, the claimant does not need to establish that the defendant was under a legal, moral or social duty to disclose the fact, nor does she need to show that the defendant knew the fact was relevant to the claimant’s right of action. All that is required is that the defendant deliberately ensures that the claimant does not know about the fact in question and so cannot bring proceedings within the ordinary time limit. Read more »