Latest Cases

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. 

Immigration – Appeal. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the Secretary of State's appeal against the respondent foreign criminal's successful appeal against deportation. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) had erred in its approach and its failure properly to have applied the Immigration Rules had led to it taking an insufficiently vigorous approach to the issues raised under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. That had been a material error of law. 

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. 

Mental health – Persons who lack capacity. The Court of Protection held that the parent of a 16 year old young person could not consent to their confinement which, absent a valid consent, would amount to a deprivation of that young person's liberty for the purposes of art 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights and that it was for the local authority to protect a young person's right in such circumstances by applications to court to determine whether that young person was deprived to his liberty, is so, to seek authorisation for its continuance. 

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. 

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. 

European Union – Rules on competition. The Court of Justice gave a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). The request had been made in proceedings between several travel agencies and the Competition Council of Lithuania concerning a decision by which the latter had ordered those travel agencies to pay fines for having entered into and participated in anti-competitive practices. 

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 – 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.