Latest Cases

Value added tax – Input tax. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) ruled on issues arising out of the appeal by the South African Tourist Board (SAFT), which had a branch in the United Kingdom, against a decision of the Revenue and Customs Commissioners (England and Wales), rejecting the taxpayer's claim to recover UK VAT incurred on supplies made to it in the UK. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The judicial authority sought the defendants' extradition to face trial for fraud and tax evasion offences. The district judge discharged the first and second defendants' European arrest warrants (EAW), but ordered the third defendant's extradition. The judicial authority and third defendant appealed. The Administrative Court held that the EAWs failed to establish the defendants were 'accused persons', under s 2(3) of the Extradition Act 2003 and were insufficiently particular, under s 2(4)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, the discharge of the first and second defendants' EAWs would be upheld and the third defendant's EAW would be discharged. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The defendant in a personal injury claim was refused permission by the district judge to amend his defence late in the proceedings in order to plead formally a case in contributory negligence. The defendant sought permission to appeal and an appeal if granted. The Queen's Bench Division in granting permission and allowing the appeal held that Justice and fairness required that the amendment should have been allowed so that 'the real dispute' between the parties could be adjudicated upon. 

Immigration – Asylum seeker. The First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (the FTT) assessed the claimant asylum seeker as a minor, but the High Court in distinct judicial review proceedings found that he was not a minor. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (the UT) found error in the FTT's decisions and placed considerable weight on the High Court's decision in finding the claimant an adult. The claimant appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the UT had not been bound by the High Court's decision, but had been entitled to attach considerable weight to it. However, the UT had not regarded itself as bound by the High Court's decision and had not fundamentally erred. 

Costs – Costs order. Issues arose regarding costs in relation to parties against whom the claim had been stayed. Having given consideration to the relevant principles in operation where there had been no determination of liability, the Technology and Construction Court held that in all the circumstances, the appropriate order as between the claimants and the relevant parties was that there should be no order as to costs except for certain discrete applications. 

Proceeds of crime – Civil recovery of proceeds of unlawful conduct. The claimant National Crime Agency sought a civil recovery order, under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, over eight properties, the proceeds of rental income, and English and Luxembourg bank accounts. The Queen's Bench Division held that, with the exception of one property, the assets were recoverable, as they had been acquired through unlawful conduct, namely, drug dealing, money laundering or VAT fraud. 

Mental health – Mental health review tribunal. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, considered a dispute between two local authorities concerning the responsibility for a man who had been made subject to two hospital orders in different areas of the country. The court held, in dismissing the appeal, that where a person had been made subject to a hospital order with restrictions, then conditionally discharged, then recalled to hospital, and then conditionally discharged for a second time, for the purposes of s 117(3) of the Mental Health Act 1983, he was still to be treated as resident in the area of the same local authority as that in which he had lived before the original hospital order had been made. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant, from Pakistan, obtained entry clearance as Tier 4 (General) student until May 2012 to undertake a course, which was subject to the condition, pursuant to s 3(1) of the Immigration Act 1977, prohibiting him from studying at an institution other than the sponsor body. The claimant left the sponsor body and completed his education at another institution. He was subsequently accepted onto a further study course at another institution, to commence July 2012, and applied for further leave to remain. The defendant Secretary of State refused his application and the claimant sought judicial review of the decision. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the condition was valid and the claimant was plainly in breach of it. Further, the Secretary of State had not acted unfairly in refusing the application. 

Education – Local education authority. The defendant local authority decided to reduce the provision of nursery education from full-time to 15 hours per week. The claimants sought judicial review of the decision. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that the authority had failed to have due regard to its statutory obligations under s 118 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, s 22 of the Childcare Act 2006 and ss 17 and 18 of the Children Act 1989. The authority had not been referred to its statutory duties in reaching the decision and, therefore, had not been provided with a framework in which to consider and properly address the issues. 

Criminal law – Appeal. The defendant was convicted of the alleged historical sexual abuse of his step-daughter. He appealed, relying on the fresh evidence of a man who also worked at the workshop where the abuse had allegedly occurred. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, dismissing his appeal against conviction, held that the fresh evidence did not render the conviction unsafe, since the evidence did not establish that the assaults could not have taken place.