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. 

Children's hearing – Right to challenge decision of children's hearing. Court of Session: In appeal against a sheriff's refusal of an appeal to her against a decision of a children's hearing as incompetent, the court held that the sheriff was fully entitled on the facts found by her to hold that the appellant was not a 'relevant person' within the meaning of s 93(2)(b) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995, and thus did not have the right to challenge the decision of a children's hearing through an appeal to the sheriff and, ultimately, to the Court of Session. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal by the Secretary of State for the Home Department against the decision of the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, to allow the respondent's appeal against the rejection of his application for judicial review of the Secretary of State's refusal to reinstate his indefinite leave to remain (ILR) which had been revoked following the issue of a deportation order pursuant to s 3(5) of the Immigration Act 1971. The Supreme Court decided that on the correct construction of s 5(2) of that Act, the respondent remained liable to deportation, even though it could not at present be carried out: although his position in the United Kingdom had to be regularised, that did not entail recognition of ILR. 

Mental health – Persons who lack capacity. The proceedings concerned the care of a young man, M, who was autistic. His parents, especially his mother, E, contended that care for M had been ineffective and that his condition had been the result of the use of the measles, mumps and rubella vaccination. The local authority sought orders stating that E had invented symptoms and failed to assist with M's care. The Court of Protection granted the orders and refused E's application to be reinstated as M's deputy. 

War – Prisoners of war. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's policy, authorising 'challenge direct' for use in the interrogation of persons captured by United Kingdom forces in situations of armed conflict. The Divisional Court dismissed the application and the claimant appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the conduct authorised by the policy did not constitute inhumane treatment, coercion, threatening or insulting conduct, or unpleasant or disadvantageous behaviour. Further, there was nothing inherent in the policy which gave rise to an unacceptable risk of unlawful conduct. In any event, the claimant lacked standing to bring the proceedings. 

Arbitration – Appeal. The claimant, PEC, was a company owned by the President of India.The defendant company, AGR, was a Thailand-based rice trader. PEC appealed under s 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996 against a finding by the GAFTA First-tier Tribunal that a purchase agreement had been concluded between the parties, through two individuals, R and J, on behalf of PEC, for the purchase of rice by PEC and that PEC were liable to pay AGR $6.25m. The Commercial Court, allowing the appeal, held that R and J had not had actual or apparent authority to conclude the purchase agreement, and that PEC had not made any arbitration agreement relating thereto. 

Employment – Discrimination against a woman. The employment tribunal upheld claims by the employee that, inter alia, she had been discriminated against on the grounds of pregnancy, maternity and her sex and awarded her compensation. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in allowing the respondents' appeal against that finding, held that the tribunal had not applied the correct legal test. Accordingly, the findings of pregnancy and maternity discrimination would be set aside and the matter remitted to the same tribunal. 

Capital gains tax – Assessment. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed a taxpayer's appeal against a discovery assessment under s 29 of the Taxes Management Act 1970 for the same reasons that his appeal to the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) had previously been dismissed. 

Insurance – Transfer of long-term insurance business. The Companies Court approved a insurance business transfer scheme for the transfer by Rothesay Assurance Ltd (RAL) of the whole of its long-term insurance business to another company in the same group, Rothesay Life Ltd (Rothesay Life). It held that, on the evidence, the capital position of Rothesay Life would remain strong after the transfer. There was no realistic prospect of risks to the position of the transferring RAL policyholders. 

European Union – Rules on competition. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the application by Mitsubishi Electric Corp. (Mitsubishi) or annulment of Commission Decision C(2012) 4381 of 27 June 2012, amending Decision C(2006) 6762 final of 24 January 2007, relating to a proceeding under art 81 [EC] and art 53 of the European Economic Area Agreement to the extent that it was addressed to Mitsubishi and Toshiba Corp., in so far as it concerned Mitsubishi and, in the alternative, for a reduction of the fine imposed on Mitsubishi.