Latest Cases

Feeds

Warsame v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Immigration – Deportation. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division dismissed the respondent's original appeal from the appellant Secretary of State's decision to deport him and allowed the Secretary of State's appeal against a determination of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber). In the light of Secretary of State for the Home Department v MG ([2014] All ER (D) 124 (Jan)), a decision based on FV (Italy) v Secretary of State for the Home Department ([2013] 1 All ER 1180) could not be sustained. 

*Parker v Nicholson and others

Bankruptcy – Trustee in bankruptcy. The Bankruptcy High Court dismissed an application for directions made by the applicant trustee, P, as to whether to admit a proof of debt filed by the respondent liquidators and whether a meeting of creditors should be convened at the liquidators' request. P's role was to make hard decisions such as the one in the present case. Such applications were to be discouraged. 

Singh, petitioner

Immigration – Leave to remain – Right to family life. Court of Session: Granting a judicial review petition by an Indian citizen, challenging the refusal of his application for leave to remain in the UK as the spouse of a British citizen, the court held that the respondent had not shown by her refusal letter that proper consideration had been given to the whole circumstances of the case, either within the Immigration Rules or outside of them. 

Sorbie v Kennedy

Croft – Resumption of croft or part of croft by landlord – Competency of application to Land Court. Court of Session: In a special case stated by the Scottish Land Court, which had granted an application for authority for resumption of land forming part of a common grazing, rejecting the respondent's contention that the application was incompetent, the court held that that an owner of land over which there was a right of common grazing in favour of crofting tenants was a 'landlord' for the purposes of s 20 of the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993, the meaning of 'landlord' where it appeared in s 20 was provided by the definition in s 61 of the Act, and having regard to that definition the Land Court did not err in holding that the reference to 'landlord' in s 20 applied to all owners of common grazing land and, in particular, the applicant. 

Cosmetic Warriors Ltd and another v Gerrie and another

Company – Articles of association. The Chancery Division held that the proper construction of the claimant companies' articles of association had been to value the defendants' minority shareholdings on the basis of a pro rata proportion of the value of the whole equity of the claimants. In addition to publicly available information, the accountants undertaking the valuation of the shares were also entitled to further available information which related to the companies. 

*Finance and Business Training Ltd v Revenue and Customs Commissioners

Value added tax – Exemptions. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the appellant taxpayer's appeal against the decision of the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) upholding the decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) that it was not an 'eligible body' for the purposes of Note (1)(b) of Group 6 in Sch 9 to the Value Added Tax Act 1994. Even though it was supplying educational services, the taxpayer failed to meet the European Union law-compliant supplier condition for the education exemption. 

Reigate and Banstead Borough Council v Fidler

Town and country planning – Enforcement notice. The Queen's Bench Division refused the defendant's application to vary an injunction obtained by the claimant planning authority against the defendant in respect of building works erected without planning permission. The court also found that the defendant was in breach of a consent order requiring compliance with the previous enforcement notices. An appropriate sanction would be a three month suspended sentence, suspended on the condition that the defendant comply with all the enforcement notices. 

WebMindLicenses Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Kiemelt Adó- és Vám Foigazgatóság

European Union – Value added tax. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of arts 2(1)(c), 24(1), 43 and 273 of Council Directive (EC) 2006/112, of Council Regulation (EU) No 904/2010, of art 4(3) TEU and arts 49, 56 and 325 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), and of arts 7, 8, 41, 47, 48, 51 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The request had been made in proceedings between WebMindLicenses Kft. and the Hungarian National Tax and Customs Authority, Principal Directorate of Taxes and Customs for Major Taxpayers concerning a decision by the latter ordering the payment of various sums in tax relating to the tax years 2009 to 2011 as well as of a fine and of penalties for late payment. 

Suh and another v Mace (UK) Ltd

Evidence – Admissibility. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the claimant tenants' appeal concerning the applicability of the 'without prejudice' privilege to certain discussions that had taken place between the second tenant and the defendant landlord's solicitor. The entirety of the discussions at the first interview and thereafter in correspondence, and at the second interview were properly to be regarded as having been protected by without prejudice privilege, which had not been waived. 

Clark v Greater Glasgow Health Board

Medical negligence – Childbirth – Application to amend. Court of Session: In an action for damages in respect of hypoxic brain injury suffered at birth in which it was alleged that the oxygen supply to the pursuer's brain in utero was impaired because her mother's womb ruptured because her labour was negligently mismanaged, and in which, following proof, the pursuer enrolled a motion seeking to allow a minute of amendment proposing a new risk disclosure case to be received, the court refused the pursuer's motion, holding that an adequate explanation had not been offered for bringing the risk disclosure case so late, and it was not reasonable, equitable and in the interests of justice to allow the new case to be added. 

Show
10
Results
Results
10
Results
virtual magazine View virtual issue

Chair’s Column

Feature image

Global gatherings

The Chair of the Bar reports back

Sponsored

Most Viewed

Partner Logo

Latest Cases