Latest Cases

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. 

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. 

Solemn procedure – Child witnesses – Right to fair trial – Right to examine witnesses. High Court of Justiciary: Refusing an appeal by an appellant who was convicted of sexual offences involving young children and who contended that his right to a fair trial, especially his subsidiary right to examine witnesses, had been breached because he did not have an adequate and proper opportunity to challenge the key witnesses against him, the court held that the appellant's trial could not be classified as unfair as he had had a full opportunity to cross-examine the children and he took that opportunity. 

European Union – Customs and excise. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling deciding, among other things, that art 20(2) of Directive (EC) 2008/118 had to be interpreted as meaning that the movement of excise goods under a duty suspension arrangement ended, for the purpose of that provision, in a situation such as that in the main proceedings, when the consignee of those goods had found, on unloading in full from the means of transport carrying the goods in question, that there had been shortages of the goods in comparison with the amount which should have been delivered to him. 

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. 

Contract – Condition. The Queen's Bench Division, in a case in which the claimant was claiming damages for fraud, conspiracy, breach of contract held that there was insufficient evidence to support a case of deliberate fraud, conspiracy or deceit. However there had been a breach of contract for which damages were payable in the amount of any overcharging in the invoices. 

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. 

European Union – Rules on competition. The Court of Justice of the European Union allowed the appeal in part by the applicant companies operating in the sale and marketing of bitumen against the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 16 September 2013 in Galp Energía España and Others v Commission: T‑462/07, by which that Court, first, partially annulled Commission Decision C(2007) 4441 final of 3 October 2007 relating to a proceeding under art 81 EC and reduced the amount of the fine imposed on them and, secondly, dismissed the action as to the remainder (the judgment under appeal). The judgment under appeal would be set aside in so far as it had fixed the new amount of the fines imposed on the applicants on the basis of an incorrect finding of the General Court. 

Medical practitioner – Disciplinary proceedings. The Administrative Court held that a doctor had a duty, under para 58 of the General Medical Council's (the GMC) Good Practice Guide (2006), to immediately notify the GMC of an adverse finding by a foreign regulatory body, notwithstanding that that decision was suspended pending appeal. Under r 4(5) of the General Medical Council (Fitness to Practise) Rules 2004, the five years after which an allegation would not proceed absent exceptional circumstances, ran from the date that the professional body actually made its findings and only the GMC registrar had the power to make a r 4(5) determination.