Latest Cases

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. 

Heritable property – Title to share of house – Purported revocation of survivorship destination. Court of Session: In a dispute about the ownership of a house which was disponed to the pursuer and his late wife 'equally between them and to the survivor of them', the wife having then executed a codicil purporting to revoke the survivorship destination in favour of the pursuer and her executors having sought confirmation on an estate which included her one‑half joint pro indiviso share of the house and granted title to that share to first defender, the court held that the first defender had stated no relevant defence to the proposition that the terms of the codicil did not operate to revoke the special destination, his case under s 1 of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 was bound to fail, and he had failed to plead a relevant case of acquiescence. 

Insolvency – Liquidation – Gratuitous alienation. Court of Session: In an action in which the liquidator of a company sought declarator that a payment of £200,000 the company made to the Self-Invested Personal Pension (SIPP) of one of its directors was a gratuitous alienation, and repayment of that sum, following a preliminary proof on the question whether the £200,000 was repaid to the company as the director averred the court held that it was for him to establish that he had repaid the full amount which was paid into the SIPP account, to do that he would have to demonstrate that the transfer he made had a material or patrimonial value equal to £200,000, and he had failed to do so. 

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. 

Arbitration – Arbitration agreement. The Commercial Court ruled on a question referred to it in the course of two shipping arbitrations. It held that, in circumstances where a claim and a counterclaim arose from a single set of facts giving rise to a balance of accounts or netting-off under a contract, a reference to 'claims' and to 'all disputes arising under the contract' in notices of appointment of an arbitrator would ordinarily suffice to interrupt the running of time in respect of the counterclaim for the purposes of s14(4) Arbitration Act 1996. 

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. 

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 – 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. 

Contract – Commercial contract. The Commercial Court construed a clause in the terms and conditions of mortgage-backed debentures (the Notes), which the claimant, a special purpose company in the Canary Wharf Group, had issued, pursuant to the securitisation of the Group's real estate portfolio. It held, in favour of the Noteholders and their trustee, that the redemption of Notes, using the proceeds of a pre-payment made by the borrower to obtain the release of security over a mortgaged property, pursuant to an inter company loan agreement, was an optional redemption under to the relevant terms and conditions, with the result that the claimant had to pay a premium. 

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.