Latest Cases

Income tax – Assessment. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (the tribunal) allowed the appeal by Easinghall Ltd (EL) against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber), refusing EL's application for a direction that the Revenue close an enquiry it had opened into EL's 2011/12 tax return. The tribunal held that the earlier review carried out by one of the Revenue's officer's into EL's 2011/12 tax return had been settled by agreement under s 54(1) of the Taxes Management Act 1970 with the result that the Revenue could not amend that return as a result of an enquiry into the same matter in the light of that settlement. 

Landlord and tenant – Lease. The Chancery Division, on the claimant's claim for, among other things, a decree of specific performance in respect of the defendant company's obligation to take a new lease, held that the defendant's contention that the lease had been surrendered by operation of law failed, it had pleaded no other defence to the claim for a decree of specific performance and there was no other ground on which such a claim ought to be denied. 

Local government – Council tax. The Administrative Court dismissed the appellant's appeal, by way of case stated, against the magistrates' court's order that he meet a council tax liability of £975.26, together with an order for costs of £75. The justices had been correct to have found that the application for the liability order had been valid when the summons had included a request for costs, that the appellant had been liable on the evidence and that the costs reasonably incurred in the case had amounted to £75. 

Sentence – Firearm offences. On the facts, the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that 16 of the 17 referred sentences, for convictions ranging in the supply, purchase and facilitation of fireams and lethal ammunition had been unduly lenient. Those sentences would be quashed, with new sentences being imposed accordingly. 

Town and country planning – Enforcement notice. The Planning Court dismissed the appellant's appeal against the decision of the inspector appointed by the first respondent Secretary of State, dismissing his appeals against two enforcement notices. The inspector had not been required to consider an alternative scheme, her factual error had not been the basis for her decision and she had correctly concluded that the second respondent local planning authority's failure to determine or respond to a request for prior approval could not have had the effect of bypassing the need to fulfil the conditions upon which development might be permitted under the relevant class. 

Divorce – Ancillary relief. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed an appeal by a husband against an ancillary relief order. The judge had not erred in awarding the wife more than 50% of the assets of the marriage, in circumstances where the husband had not made proper financial disclosure or provided a budget of his needs, and where the judge had made provision for the wife's trimmed budget whilst also providing properly for the husband's needs. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Ugly, Inc. against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), relating to opposition proceedings between Ugly Inc. and Group Lottuss Corp., concerning the application by the latter for registration of the word mark' COYOTE UGLY' as a Community trade mark. 

Contract – Restitution. The Commercial Court allowed the claimant company's application for a declaration as to the construction of an interest rate swap agreement. It held that, among other things, the swap in question was not governed by a 2002 ISDA master agreement, and the swap would be rectified so that it was governed by the agreement. Consequently, the early termination amount was due and payable to the claimant. 

European Union – Freedom of movement. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding, among other things, that art 33 of Directive 2011/95/EU had to be interpreted as meaning that a residence condition imposed on a beneficiary of subsidiary protection status, such as the conditions at issue in the main proceedings, constituted a restriction of the freedom of movement guaranteed by that article, even when it did not prevent the beneficiary from moving freely within the territory of the member state that had granted the protection and from staying on a temporary basis in that territory outside the place designated by the residence condition. 

Nuisance – Occupier. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the second defendant's appeal against the judge's decision that she was liable in nuisance to the claimant owners of the next door property, even though she did not occupy the property from which the nuisance emanated. W had been in possession and control of the property throughout her daughter's residence there and she had been able to abate the nuisance, but had chosen to do nothing.