Latest Cases

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. 

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. 

Immigration – Removal. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the appellants' appeals against the decision of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), dismissing their claims for judicial review of the respondent Secretary of State's refusal to admit their representations as fresh claims for asylum. It was not possible to say that those decisions had been irrational in the light of the applicable test and the Secretary of State had not failed to have proper regard to any true vulnerability of the appellants. 

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. 

Water supply – Charges. The Chancery Division ruled on charges for water and sewerage services supplied to properties inhabited by the defendant local authority's tenants. The court ruled that, among other things, between 2000 and 2013, the defendant had charged the claimant more than the maximum charge allowed under the Water Resale Order 2006. 

Contract – Breach of contract. The Commercial Court made findings, overall in the claimant Portuguese bank's favour, in its claim for declarations that the defendant Portuguese transport companies' obligations under long-term interest rate swaps constituted legal, valid and binding obligations, enforceable in accordance with their respective terms. It rejected the defendants' defences that they lacked capacity to enter into the swaps, that art 3(3) of the Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations 1980 applied and that the bank had acted in breach of its duties under the Portuguese Securities Code. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The Planning Court allowed the claimant local planning authority's challenge to the decision of the inspector appointed by the first defendant Secretary of State, granting outline planning permission to the second defendant developer to build up to 85 dwellings and associated works. Because of the harm to designated heritage assets, limb 2 of para 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework fell to be considered first and the inspector had only undertaken the weighted exercise in limb 1. 

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. 

Practice – Parties. The Chancery Division allowed the claiming defendants' application for permission to join CL as a defendant to the counterclaim in a case concerning the alleged infringement of the claimants' copyright in the first defendant company's conduct of its therapy business. The counterclaim alleged that the claimants and CL had been negligent, both in their selection of a particular machine as a mandatory device for the administration of the therapy, and in their insistence on the continued use of the machine after problems allegedly became evident with it. The court held that CL had given direct advice to a number of the defendants, and that it could not be said that the claiming defendants had no real prospect of establishing their allegations against her. 

Negligence – Causation. The Queen's Bench Division found that the claimant's case against the defendant hospital in negligence succeeded, in that there had been negligence in failing to perform a timely brain scan and call an ambulance and that those failures caused the claimant's injury. The amount for pain, suffering and loss of amenity payable was £107,470, with a total award in the sum of £454,858.65.