Latest Cases

Heritable property – Dispute as to ownership – Prescriptive possession. Court of Session: In a dispute about the ownership of residential property in which the pursuer, the executor nominate on his father's estate, sought reduction of a 2006 disposition of the disputed property in favour of the defenders, who had moved into the property in 1992 and paid the pursuer's parents £15 per week in connection with their occupation of it, the court granted decree of declarator in favour of the pursuer, holding that he had established that his father possessed an interest in the land which included the property for a continuous period of 10 years from 1 December 1992, openly, peaceably and without any judicial interruption. 

Divorce – Jurisdiction. The Family Division, applying art 19 of Council Regulation (EC) 2201/2003, dismissed the wife's divorce petition where the jurisdiction of the French court had been established. The husband had previously filed a divorce petition in the French court and, accordingly, that court was first seised. The court should actively discourage the tactical filing of a second set of proceedings in England when the jurisdiction of the court of another member state had been established. 

Income tax – Assessment. The Chancery Division allowed an application for summary judgment by seven companies in the course of the FII group litigation concerning restitution of advance corporation tax (ACT) paid on foreign income dividends (FIDs). The companies had succeeded in claims regarding FIDs which the respondent Revenue and Customs Commissioners sought to appeal. The court held that the Revenue's arguments did not have a real prospect of success. 

Income tax – Employment. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (the tribunal) dismissed the appeal by the taxpayer employee against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) which had rejected the taxpayer's challenge to an amendment to his tax return by the Revenue and Customs Commissioners (the Revenue). The tribunal decided, among other things that the payment made by the employer to the employee to settle his claim for unfair dismissal and age discrimination following the termination of his employment by reason of redundancy fell to be treated as employment income by ss 401 and 403 of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 and was therefore chargeable to income tax under s 6 of that Act. 

Will – Validity. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appellant's appeal in probate proceedings, held that, in the circumstances, the judge had been entitled to pronounce in favour of the deceased's will made in 2005. Among other things, it held that the judge had adequately identified the salient criteria for determination of testamentary capacity and the evidence had entitled him to have made the findings that he had. 

Personal injury – Exposure to asbestos – Liability. Court of Session: Following a proof on liability in an action in which the pursuer alleged that he had contracted mesothelioma due to negligent exposure to asbestos in the course of his employment with defenders, the court concluded that the evidence was not sufficiently reliable to entitle it to find as a fact that the pursuer was exposed to dangerous quantities of asbestos dust during renovation works between 1976 and 1979, and his action could not, therefore, succeed. 

Insurance – Policy. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the claimant's appeal concerning a claim for hire charges in respect of a replacement vehicle following a road traffic accident. The particulars of claim made it clear that the claim was a subrogated claim under a policy of insurance, under which the claimant had claimed, and that the hire charges had been discharged by payments under the policy. Among other things, the court did not accept that, if there had been, as the judge had found, two insurance policies, it had been right to confine the claimant to a claim only in respect of the first. 

Criminal law – Conspiracy. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that the defendants' convictions for conspiracy to convert criminal property, contrary to s 1(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977 and s 327(1) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, had not been unsafe. The judge's ruling that there had been a case to answer was correct. Both elements of the offences had been potentially present and there had been evidence upon which the defendants could have been convicted. However, the judge had fallen into a degree of error when having sentenced three of the defendants for their offending. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Queen's Bench Division acceded to the applications of the defendants to strike out the claim form and particulars, and also to grant summary judgment. Having regard to the whole of the evidence the claim did not have a realistic prospect of success. 

Income tax – Partnership. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (the tribunal) dismissed the appeal by the Revenue and Customs Commissioners against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (tax Chamber) which had allowed the taxpayer's claim for deduction of a payment made to a bank on the basis that it had been am expense incurred 'wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the trade' as required by s 34 of the Income Tax (Trading and Other Income) Act 2005. The tribunal held that it was in the context of the limited liability partnership (LLP) conducted collectively that the taxpayer had to justify the deduction of his payment and that the payment at issue had not been incurred 'wholly and exclusively' for the purposes of the LLP's trade.