Latest Cases

Privilege – Legal professional privilege. The Divisional Court dismissed the claimant's application for judicial review of the legality of the procedure set out in the Operational Handbook of the Serious Fraud Office for dealing with material potentially subject to legal professional privilege embedded in electronic devices. The procedure was lawful and, in particular, the preliminary sift of paper or electronic material did not have to, as a matter of law, be conducted by third parties. 

Social security – Housing benefit. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that reg B13 of the amended Housing Benefit Regulations 2006, SI 2006/213, unlawfully discriminated, without an objective and reasonable justification, against female victims of domestic violence living in specially adapted accommodation under the 'Sanctuary Scheme' and against disabled children living in specially adapted accommodation who required overnight respite care, contrary to art 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The submissions that there had been a breach of the public sector equality duty under s 149 of the Equality Act 2010 were dismissed. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed an appeal against the refusal of indefinite leave to remain, which had been upheld by the Immigration and Asylum tribunals. At no point in the chronology of his case could the appellant have made an application for leave to remain which met the requirements of the Immigration Rules that had been in force at the time the application was made or at the time at which such application was decided. 

European Union – Jurisdiction. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that art 6(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 should be interpreted to the effect that its scope included an action brought by a third party, in accordance with national law, against the defendant in the original proceedings, and closely linked to those original proceedings, seeking reimbursement of compensation paid by that third party to the applicant in those original proceedings, provided that the action had not been instituted solely with the object of removing that defendant from the jurisdiction of the court which would be competent in the case. 

Mental health – Patient. In allowing the appellant patient's appeal, the Supreme Court held that it would be wrong to have a presumption that an anonymity order should be made in every case in civil proceedings in the High Court relating to a patient detained in a psychiatric hospital or otherwise subject to compulsory powers under the Mental Health Act 1983. However, in the present case, the anonymity order in place would be maintained on the basis that without it there was a very real risk that the progress the appellant had made during his long years of treatment in hospital would be put in jeopardy and his re-integration in the community, which had been an important purpose of his transfer to hospital, would not succeed. 

European Union – Consumer protection. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling deciding, among other things, that art 16(b) of Regulation (EC) No 110/2008 should be interpreted as meaning that, in order to assess whether there was an 'evocation' within the meaning of that provision, the national court was required to refer to the perception of the average consumer who was reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect, that concept being understood as covering European consumers and not only consumers of the member state in which the product giving rise to the evocation of the protected geographical indication was manufactured. 

European Union – Customs and excise. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that, art 143(1)(h) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93, as amended, should be interpreted as meaning that a buyer, who was a natural person, and a seller, which was a legal person, within which a kin of that buyer actually had the power to influence the sales price of goods for the benefit of that buyer, had to be regarded as being related persons within the meaning of art 29(1)(d) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Queen's Bench Division allowed an appeal from the defendant employer, following the entering of judgment by consent, seeking to rely on fresh medical evidence in relation to the claimant's claim that he had suffered diffuse pleural thickening and asbestosis caused by his exposure to asbestos dust during the course of his employment. The order would be varied to read that there be judgment for the claimant on breach of duty, with the issues of causation and quantum to be assessed. 

Value added tax – Recovery of tax. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (the tribunal) allowed the appeal by the Revenue and Customs Commissioners against a decision of the First-Tier tribunal (Tax Chamber) to the effect that the taxpayer was entitled to a refund of VAT claimed under s 35(4) of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 incurred in connection with the construction of a building for use as a dwelling. The tribunal decided that condition 4 of the planning consent had prohibited the separate use of the building with the result that the building was not 'designed as a dwelling' for the purposes of s 35(1A) of the Act and Note 2(c) of Group 5 of Sch 8 to the Act. Consequently, its construction did not attract a refund of VAT pursuant to s 35(1) of the Act. 

Income tax – Tax advantage. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimants' application for judicial review of the defendant Revenue and Customs Commissioner's decisions to limit the benefits available to them under the Liechtenstein Disclosure Facility in relation to their employee benefit trust schemes. The decisions were not conspicuously unfair and the Revenue had taken account of all relevant considerations. There had been no abuse of power or error of law.