Latest Cases

European Union – Legal basis of regulation. The Court of Justice of the European Union granted the action brought by Moallem Insurance Co for: (i) annulment of the European Council which had listed the applicant in Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP (concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP); (ii) annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1264/2012 (implementing Regulation (EU) 267/2012 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) 961/2010) in so far as it had listed the applicant in Annex IX to Regulation 267/2012; and (iii) a declaration that art 12 of Decision 2010/413 and art 35 of Regulation 267/2012 were inapplicable to it. 

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. 

Armed forces – Service complaints. The first defendant Army Board of the Defence Council (the panel) rejected the claimant's service complaint, contending that his career had been mismanaged. The claimant issued judicial review proceedings. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the panel had been entitled to take the view that an oral hearing had not been necessary to fairly decide the matter. Further, the 34-month delay in the determination of the complaint had not been unlawful under art 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights or at common law. 

Employment – Continuity. The employment judge, in determining whether the first respondent had transferred from the second respondent to the appellant when there had been a service provision change from the former to the latter, found that there had been an organised grouping. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in allowing the appeal, held that the reasons had not disclosed that the judge had engaged with the appellant's case and, if so, what conclusions had been reached in that respect. Further, it had been unclear whether the judge had applied the correct test. Accordingly, the matter would be remitted to a fresh tribunal. 

Medical practitioner – Professional misconduct. The appellant registered nurse appealed against the decision of a panel of the Conduct and Competence Committee of the respondent Nursing and Midwifery Council (the panel), finding that his fitness to practice was impaired by reason of misconduct and suspending his registration for 12 months. The Administrative Court, in allowing the appeal, held that the panel had failed to conduct a careful balancing exercise in admitting the witness statements of absent witnesses and had failed to consider their credibility or reliability. Further, the findings in respect of a third witness could not stand and the decision would be quashed with no direction for a rehearing. 

Tort – Wrongful interference with goods. The claimant issued proceedings against the defendants, claiming damages for conspiracy, and for trespass to and/or conversion of and wrongful interference with containers of aircraft spares. The Queen's Bench Division held that the conspiracy claim had not been established, but that the first defendant had converted the containers it held as bailee. The fourth defendant was also liable for conversion for taking possession, through the third defendant, of the containers and disposing of them. Damages would be limited to the sale price achieved of £7,500. 

Employment tribunal – Procedure. The employment tribunal allowed the employee's claims that the employer was liable for disability discrimination by proceeding with a disciplinary hearing and an internal appeal, but found that all other complaints of disability discrimination were not well-founded. The employee's request for a review was refused. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in dismissing the employee's appeal against the refusal of a review, held that the tribunal judge had not committed any error of law in approaching the review. 

Employment – Discrimination against a woman. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT), in dismissing the employee's appeal against the rejection by the employment tribunal of her claims for maternity discrimination, indirect sex discrimination and constructive dismissal, found that although the tribunal had erred factually in its approach to constructive dismissal, its conclusion on the facts had been plainly and obviously right. The EAT also made some observations about the procedure to be adopted where the parties found it difficult to agree bundles for use at the EAT. 

Family proceedings – Costs. Following a decision of the Family Division to make an order in its' inherent jurisdiction that the local authority were permitted not to disclose the care plan for the unborn child to the mother, namely removal into care at birth and three hearings regarding the capacity of the mother in the Court of Protection, the issue of costs arose. The Court of Protection made an appropriate order on the basis of the evidence before it. 

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.