Latest Cases

Value added tax – Exemptions. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (the tribunal) ruled on an appeal by Bookit Ltd against a decision of the Revenue and Customs Commissioners which had decided that the taxpayer's services consisting of credit and debit card handling fees charged by the taxpayer to customers making advance bookings for cinema tickets at Odeon cinemas, were not exempt within 

Company – Take-over bid. The claimant companies had been beneficial shareholders in the defendant company. The directors of the defendant imposed restrictions on the claimants under Pt 22 of the Companies Act 2006 and pursuant to its articles of association. The claimants commenced derivative actions challenging those restrictions. The defendant's submission that the claimants had not had standing to bring the claims was dismissed by the Chancery Division. The claimants succeeded in part. The defendant and one of the claimants appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the defendant's appeal, holding that the defendant's power to impose the restrictions had not been used for an improper purpose. The claimant's submission that the judge had erred in finding that the disclosure notices issued under s 793 of the Act had been valid was dismissed, as was its submission that the judge had erred in finding that the defendant had had reasonable cause to believe that the claimant's disclosure had been false or materially incorrect. 

Practice – Conduct of proceedings. The claimant claimed to have been an agent of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and/or Special Branch in Northern Ireland between 1987 and 1991. He brought a claim seeking to prove that security arrangements and promises made to him by State officials of financial and non-financial support were mishandled. The defendant neither admitted nor denied the first claimant's allegations and applied for a declaration under s 6 of Justice and Security Act 2013 to deploy her case with the aid of sensitive material. The Queen's Bench Division held that the conditions under s 6 of the Act had been met and that the case raised difficult issues which were better decided under the umbrella of s 6 proceedings. 

Elections – Local government. Following mayoral elections in Tower Hamlets, the petitioners issued an election petition to challenge that election. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed the petitioners' application for a protective costs order as the Representation of the People Act 1983 made special provision for costs in respect of election petitions. Further, the successful candidate's application to dismiss or strike out the election petition was dismissed as it could not be said that the petition was in whole, or in part, a nullity for want of sufficient particularity. 

Costs – Order for costs. Following the claimant's success in obtaining an injunction against the defendant, the claimant applied, pursuant to CPR 36.14(3)(d) in the prescribed percentages, calculated by reference to the sum awarded in respect of costs. The Queen's Bench Division held that the imposition of an additional liability would involve an element of penalty which the court did not consider just to impose on the defendant. The court would therefore decline to impose on the defendant an order for an additional amount. 

Pension – Pension scheme. Th Chancery Division held, among other things, that, in respect of the Arcadia Group Pension Scheme and the Arcadia Group Senior Executives Pension Scheme, the definitions of retail price index (RPI), applicable in respect of the schemes, operated to confer powers to select an index other than RPI, and that such power of selection was exercisable by the principal employer under the schemes and the trustee of the relevant scheme jointly. 

Particulars of claim – Amendment. The proceedings concerned the award of a contract to provide legal services. The claimant solicitors' firm was unsuccessful in a tendering process, and brought proceedings against the defendant Insolvency Service. It sought to amend its particulars of claim. The court dismissed the application, and the claimant appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the appeal would be allowed in respect of the amendment, and that a suspension regarding the award of the contract would be maintained regarding one of the tenderers. 

Conflict of laws – Jurisdiction. The claimant had invested in a fund operated by the defendant, a Gibraltar company, which had lost all its capital. The claimant brought a claim in negligence and breach of contract against the defendant and served the claim form, without permission, outside the jurisdiction under CPR 6.33(2)(b)(iii) and art 23 of Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001. The Commercial Court dismissed the defendant's application to set aside the service of the claim where the claimant had a good arguable case that there had been a concluded agreement, within art 23 of the Regulation. 

Human rights – Property. The European Court of Human Rights found that the government of the United Kingdom had wrongly confiscated the wages of an Ivorian worker who had used a false passport to gain employment and should have balanced individual property rights against the interests of the general public. Consequently, the applicant's right to peaceful enjoyment of his property pursuant to art 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights had been violated. 

Medical practitioner – Professional misconduct. Concerns were raised as to the competence of the claimant surgeon, and he was referred to a disciplinary panel. He applied for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant NHS trust from referring his case to a capability hearing panel. The Queen's Bench Division, in dismissing the application, held that, among other things, on the true construction of the relevant standards procedure, an employer could proceed to a capability hearing even if it had not received advice that a practitioner's performance was so fundamentally flawed that no action plan had a realistic chance of success.