Latest Cases

Mental health – Court of Protection. The Court of Protection allowed an application by a the husband of the patient to appoint her him as a deputy for property and affairs. That appointment was in the face of opposition by the patient's children on the basis that the husband was illiterate and had a poor grasp of English. 

Mental health – Persons who lack capacity. The Court of Protection determined that it was in the best interests of the first respondent, a 74-year-old woman with dementia, to live at a care home, rather than returning to her home. The interference with her rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights caused by that decision was prescribed by law, proportionate to the identified risks and for a permitted purpose. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Family Division ordered a re-consideration of an earlier fact-finding hearing, in which it had been concluded that a mother had caused the injuries to her 10-month-old son, where aspects of newly obtained medical evidence cast a sufficiently fresh perspective on the evidence previously adduced as to warrant review. 

Value added tax – Zero-rating. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) dismissed the appeal by Boxmoor Construction Ltd (Boxmoor) against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) that certain supplies by Boxmoor were not zero-rated supplies in the course of construction of a building designed as a dwelling within Item 2 of Group 5 of Sch 8 to the Value Added Tax Act 1994, but were chargeable to VAT at the standard rate. 

Company – Investment business. The Commercial Court allowed the claimant companies' claim for repayment of €1.3m, following the restructuring of two funds in a portfolio of assets into one. On the true construction of the termination agreement between the parties, the sum in issue was included in the amounts that the defendant company was bound to pay the first claimant. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Family Division considered the applicant local authority's application for an interim care order regarding LW, who had been born on 16 January 2016. The court criticised delays arising from the local authority's conduct and stressed the importance of making applications for public law proceedings in respect of new born babies timeously and especially, where the circumstances arguably required the removal of the child from its parent(s), within at most five days of the child's birth. 

Value added tax – Exemptions. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed an appeal by the Revenue and Customs Commissioners, holding that the BBC, as provider of services to The Open University (OU), was entitled to reclaim VAT on the production and broadcasting of services relating to the OU's courses. While the BBC was not a body governed by public law within the meaning of art 13A(1)(i) of Council Directive (EEC) 77/388, it did have the requisite educational aim to bring it within the education exemption in art 13A(1)(i) and was entitled to rely on the direct effect of that article because of the UK's failure to implement the Directive. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed an appeal against the judge's refusal to make an order for security for costs. The judge had erred in finding that there was no reason to believe that the claimant would be unable to pay if it lost. If there was a practice of the Commercial Court that security for costs would often be granted against a foreign company who was not obliged to publish accounts, had no discernible assets and declined to reveal anything about its financial position, that practice was a sound one. The court gave guidance on the approach to be taken in such applications, in particular in CPR Pt 20 proceedings and where there was an agreed, and court approved, costs budget regarding costs already incurred. 

Contract – Repudiation. The Companies Court ruled on consequential issues which arose following the main judgment on the claimant's petition alleging unfair prejudice in relation to the affairs of a limited liability company (LLP). Among other things, it considered whether its preliminary view had been wrong in respect of the validity of a third termination letter, giving the claimant notice requiring him to retire as a member of the management committee of the LLP. The court further ruled that the LLP should pay 50% of the claimant's costs, and that he should pay 60% of the LLP's costs in circumstances where the claim to be entitled to a share in the LLP had failed only at the last hurdle, but where the claimant had succeeded on all of the prior steps in the argument. 

Tort – Fraud. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed the claimants claim for fraudulent misrepresentation regarding an investment made in the defendant's car hire company. On the fact the representations had not been made as alleged and in any event were not fraudulent.