Latest Cases

Immigration – Leave to remain. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed an appeal against the Secretary of State's refusal to grant the appellant leave to remain as a Tier 4 (General) Student. At the time he had made his application, he had been an overstayer and fairness had not required that he be provided with an opportunity to find a new sponsor college in circumstances where the college that he had enrolled in had surrendered its sponsor licence before a decision had been made on his application for leave. 

European Union – European Commission. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the appeal brought by DF, an official of the European Commission, asking the Court of the European Union: (i) to set aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 1 October 2014 which only partially upheld his action seeking, inter alia, annulment of the decision of the European Commission of 20 December 2012 ordering recovery of the expatriation allowance and annual travel expenses received by him during his secondment in Germany; and (ii) in so far as necessary, to annul Commission decision of 24 June 2014, rejecting his complaint. 

Value added tax – Recovery of tax. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (the tribunal) allowed the taxpayer company's appeal against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)(the FTT) which had upheld the decision by the Revenue and Customs Commissioners to reject the taxpayer's claim for repayment of VAT incorrectly accounted for in respect of unredeemed vouchers purchased for accessing certain features on the taxpayer's genealogical website. The tribunal held that the FTT had erred in its analysis of the relevant issues in the appeal. 

Contract – Construction. The Commercial Court dismissed an application by the claimant company, Adamantine, for an order that the defendant company was to transfer its 50% participating interest in a drilling operation in Kenya to it, as per the contract between the parties. On the true construction of the contract, the circumstances where the transfer would occur had not arisen and hence the application could not be allowed. 

Trade mark – Infringement. The Chancery Division made a number of findings regarding the validity of two trade marks of which the claimant company, the London Taxi Corporation Ltd, was the registered proprietor. It held that, among other things, both of the trade marks would be declared invalid in respect of goods in Class 12 on the ground that they consisted exclusively of the shape that gave substantial value to the goods. The defendants had not infringed the trade marks and the claimant's action for passing off failed. 

Conflict of laws – Foreign judgment. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed a father's appeal against the mother's successful appeal against recognition and enforcement of an order obtained in Romania regarding their child, who was habitually resident in England. It was both a welfare and fundamental principle whether a child was to be heard and the question to be determined by the court, by reference to the child's age and understanding, was 'whether and if so how was the child to be heard'. As the child in the present case had not been given an opportunity to be heard in the Romanian proceedings, the judge had been correct to refuse recognition and enforcement of its order pursuant to art 23(b) of Council Regulation (EC) 2201/2003. 

Contempt of court – Committal. The Chancery Division dismissed the claimant, Sports Direct's application to commit the defendants, Rangers International Football Club and its chairman, to prison for breach of an order restricting the disclosure of certain confidential information, following the chairman's interview on Sky Sports, reported in an article. There was no evidence to that Rangers had held the chairman out as having authority to make the statements on its behalf, and an unverified hearsay statement of one or more unidentified reporter(s) was not a sufficient basis for persuading the court to the criminal standard that the chairman had uttered the words said. Further, it was fatal to Sports Direct's application that no order had been served personally on the defendants and the court declined to exercise the discretion, under CPR 81.8, to dispense with service. 

Solicitor – Advice. The Chancery Division held that the defendant firm of solicitors, which had acted on behalf of the claimant in respect of the purchase of land, and for another individual in respect of the sub-sale of part of that land, was liable to the claimant in negligence concerning the sub-sale. The defendant's principal, by attaching the wrong plan to the TP1 form and filing of it, had diminished the value of the retained land. The defendant was also liable for negligent advice concerning the amount of stamp duty land tax (SDLT) to be paid, with the result that the claimant had overpaid the SDLT. The concession to SDLT in respect of transfers of land, under s 45 of the Finance Act 2003, had been available because there had been substantial performance of the contract to purchase the whole site and the sale of part of it at the same time. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The Planning Court partially allowed the claimant company's challenge to the decision of the inspector appointed by the first defendant Secretary of State, dismissing its appeals against the second defendant local planning authority's refusal of its applications for development. The inspector had considered two points which had not been raised by the parties, which had resulted in unfairness to the claimant. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The Divisional Court gave guidance on the correct approach to European arrest warrants containing particulars of offences for which return was sought which stated that the sentences for other offences had been 'merged' in a variety of ways into the offences for which return was sought. In particular, it considered the warrants' validity with respect to the sufficiency of the particulars and specialty.