A recent decision of the French Cour de cassation (Cass. Civ. 1re, 19 nov 2002, Banque Worms c. Epoux Brachot, J.C.P. 2002.II,10 201, concl. Sainte-Rose, note Chaillé de Néré, D.2003.797, note Khairallah) provides an interesting contribution to the recurrent debate, fuelled by the House of Lords request for a preliminary ruling from the European Court of Justice in Turner v. Grovit [2001] UKHL 65, [2002] 1 W.L.R. 107, over the availability of extraterritorial injunctive relief within the scope of the Brussels I Regulationwhether in the form of anti-suit injunctions in cases of parallel proceedings, or indeed of freezing orders under Article 31 in relation to assets situated in another Member State.

The applicability to administrative decision-making of Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (which requires that the determination of a person's “civil rights” should be by an “independent and impartial tribunal”) is somewhat vexed. First, it is often uncertain when an administrative decision determines “civil rights”. And, secondly, since non-compliance at first instance may be cured where the person aggrieved has access to a court of “full jurisdiction”, it is important but often uncertain to know what “full jurisdiction” is in the circumstances. The full tale is told in (2001) 60 C.L.J. 449 (Forsyth) and in Wade and Forsyth, Administrative Law, 8th edn. (2000) at pp. 441-444. Those unfamiliar with these technical issues should read a standard account before turning to Runa Begum v. Tower Hamlets London Borough Council (First Secretary of State Intervening) [2003] UKHL 5, [2003] 2 W.L.R. 388 (H.L.).

As far back as 53 years ago, the adaptability of the common law to changing circumstances whereby new rights have been created by the courts, has been observed and accepted as a function of the judiciary. Scott L.J. in his dictum in Haseldine v. Daw stated: The common law has throughout its long history developed as an organic growth, at first slowly under hampering restrictions of legal forms of process, more quickly in Lord Mansfield's time, and in the last 100 years at an ever increasing rate of progress as new cases, arising under new conditions of society, of applied science and of public opinion, have presented themselves for solution.

IN Prince Alfred College Incorporated v ADC [2016] HCA 37, the High Court of Australia (HCA) has once again considered the appropriate test for establishing vicarious liability of employers for the wrongful acts of their employees. The decision will be of interest to tort lawyers in the common-law world for at least four reasons. First, the Court looked afresh at the test for vicarious liability in the context of intentional wrongdoing and has accordingly clarified the confusion arising from its earlier decision in New South Wales v Lepore [2003] HCA 4; (2003) 212 C.L.R. 511. Secondly, the Court expressed very strong disagreement with the decision of the UK Supreme Court handed down just months earlier in Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets plc [2016] UKSC 11; [2016] A.C. 677. The Court apparently regarded Mohamud as having in effect abandoned the Lister qualification that mere opportunity was not enough to satisfy the close connection test (Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd. [2001] UKHL 22; [2002] 1 A.C. 215). Thirdly, the Court appears to have interpreted the relevant English authorities as espousing a Caparo-like criterion of fairness and justice as a separate stage of the close connection test (Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 A.C. 605). That interpretation is questionable. Finally, the Court has articulated a new test in Australian law for vicarious liability reasoning based on whether the employment provided the “occasion” for the wrongdoing to be committed. This prompts a reflection on the difference between “occasion” and “opportunity”, and how this new test is to be applied in practice.

The apparently straightforward definition of redundancy contained in section 139 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 has generated a disproportionate and confused body of case law. In essence, redundancy pay is payable in three situations: the business disappears (s. 139(1)(a)(i)); the workplace disappears (s. 139(1)(a)(ii)); the job disappears (s. 139(1)(b)). As far as the disappearing workplace is concerned, recent cases have shown the courts taking a more pragmatic approach. The old contractual test laid down in UK Atomic Energy Authority v. Claydon [1974] I.C.R. 128 (where, by my contract, can I be required to work?) has been replaced by the geographic approach (where, in practice, do I work?): Bass Leisure Ltd v. Thomas [1994] I.R.L.R. 104 (E.A.T.) and High Table v. Horst [1997] I.R.L.R. 513 (C.A.). A similar pragmatism can be detected in the House of Lords' ruling in Murray v. Foyle Meats Ltd. [1999] I.R.L.R. 562 concerning the third aspect of the definition of redundancy, the disappearing job (s. 139(1)(b)).