Latest Cases

Financial services – Financial Conduct Authority. The Supreme Court, in dismissing the appellants' appeal, held that arrangements made by the first appellant company, which was controlled by the second appellant, to enable members of the public to invest in land, amounted to collective investment schemes within the meaning of s 235 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and, thus, 'regulated activities' for the purpose of s 19 of the Act. 

Construction contract – Arbitration. The Technology and Construction Court dismissed the claimant company's appeal seeking variation or remission of a partial award made by an arbitrator in proceedings concerning a construction contract incorporating the JCT Conditions SBCSub/C2005 Rev 1 2007. The arbitrator had not erred in law in respect of his application of the burden of proof, his understanding of the principles set out in Walter Lilly & Co Ltd v Mackay[2012] All ER (D) 213 (Jul), and his finding that the defendant was entitled to statutory interest. 

Value added tax – Supply of goods and services. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) dismissed the action brought by way of judicial review by Telefonica Europe plc and Telefonica UK Ltd challenging a decision by the Revenue and Customs Commissioners to change the method by which those companies had calculated the proportion of the monthly charge to customers for the supply of access to the mobile telephone network that related to such access used and enjoyed by customers outside the European Union. 

Immigration – Practice. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (the UT) determined that a consent order, purporting to transfer the claimant's judicial review proceedings commenced in the UT to the High Court, was a nullity. On a proper interpretation of the legislation, the assumption that it would be for the High Court to decide whether the claimant should be permitted to add a claim for a declaration of incompatibility was mistaken. 

Housing – Local authority. The Administrative Court allowed the claimants' application for judicial review of the defendant local authority's scheme, reserving 20% of all available lettings for working households and model tenants. The working households element of the scheme amounted to unlawful indirect discrimination under the Equality Act 2010, which required the authority to amend the scheme, but challenges based on discrimination under the European Convention on Human Rights, the public sector equality duty and the welfare of children were also upheld. 

Income tax – Capital gains. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) allowed the appeal by the Revenue and Customs Commissioners against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber), following a joint reference to it by the taxpayer and the Revenue, that corporate bonds purchased by the taxpayer and subsequently realised in whole or in part were qualifying corporate bonds within s 117 of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 and thereby qualified for the exemption from capital gains tax contained in s 115 of that Act. 

Company – Shares. The Chancery Division made findings concerning the ownership of property belonging to the claimant and the first defendant, who had formerly been in a long-term relationship. Among other things, it made findings concerning the ownership of the second and third defendant companies. 

Health and safety – Health and safety inspector. The Administrative Court allowed the appellant health and safety inspector's appeal against the decision of the employment tribunal, cancelling a notice prohibiting the respondent from carrying out further roofing works. The tribunal had failed to determine whether it would have issued the notice based on the information that the inspector had known, or ought to have known, when he had issued the notice and to recognise that, subject to reasonable practicality, the respondent had been obliged to provide sufficient work equipment to prevent a fall or minimise the distance and consequences of a fall. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Novomatic AG against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office relating to opposition proceedings between Granini France and Novomatic AG concerning the application by the latter for registration of the figurative sign 'HOT JOKER' as an EU trade mark. 

Negligence – Information or advice. The Queen's Bench Division held that the defendant solicitor had given negligent advice in relation to the identification of general conditions of service in the giving of advice in an employment termination agreement. If the claimant had been given correct non-negligent advice about the effect of the payment in lieu of notice clause on the vesting of the final 25 per cent of the long term incentive plan (LTIP), the CRU Group would have been able to avoid agreeing to the vesting of the remaining 25 per cent of the LTIP in the employment settlement agreement and side letter.