Latest Cases

Income tax – Profits. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) dismissed the appeal by the taxpayers against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) to strike out the taxpayers' respective cases on the bases that: (i) the claim that s 58 of the Finance Act 2008 was incompatible with art 56 of the European Community Treaty had been adjudicated on in previous proceedings, namely R (on the application of Shiner) v Revenue and Customs Comrs[2011] STC 1878 (Shiner); and (ii) that it was an abuse of process to argue that point. 

Sentence – Custodial sentence. The Administrative Court previously found the second defendant Secretary of State in breach of public law duty to provide systems and resources the claimant prisoners serving indeterminate sentences for public protection needed to demonstrate that detention was no longer necessary for public protection. As the first and second claimants had completed the healthy sex programme course and the second claimant would be provided with it in April to June 2016, it was no longer necessary to make a mandatory order. 

Bank – Account. The Chancery Division held that a banking arrangement to temporarily hold mortgage payments had not put the claimant mortgagor into arrears for those payments. Consequently, the defendant bank was wrong to have circulated adverse credit information relating to those payments. By deeming the unpaid instalments as arrears, the bank had also wrongly double-charged the claimant for interest payments. The bank had been successful in enforcing a claim for money which had been guaranteed by the claimant. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) held that it had jurisdiction to determine a challenge to the refusal to transfer a 'no time limit' (NTL) stamp from the document given on grant of indefinite leave to remain (ILR) on the basis of false information. Where NTL was applied for following incorrect information which led to ILR, the Secretary of State should notify the claimant of the need to show cause why ILR should not be revoked. 

Landlord and tenant – Lease. The Chancery Division dismissed the defendant landlord's appeal against a judge's decision declaring that the claimant lessee was entitled to acquire the freehold of a house leased from the landlord, pursuant to Pt 1 of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967. The judge had been entitled to reach the decision which he had. It would not be consistent with the purposes of the Act to allow the legal division of a party wall to disqualify the house from enfranchisement 

Patent – Practice. The Patents Court struck out the applicant company's application to amend one of the claims of a patent following a trial at which it had been unsuccessful. The court held that the application to amend was an abuse of process, because it could and should have been made prior to trial. 

Landlord and tenant – Rent. The Supreme Court dismissed Marks and Spencer's appeal in which it had sought to recover an apportionment of rent paid quarterly in advance, in circumstances where it had exercised a break clause that had led to determination of the lease during that quarter. Save in a very clear case, it would be wrong to attribute to a landlord and a tenant, particularly when they had entered into a full and professionally drafted lease, an intention that the tenant should receive an apportioned part of the rent payable and paid in advance, when the non-apportionability of such rent had been so long and clearly established. Therefore, the court refused to imply a term allowing Marks and Spencer to recover the sums paid. 

Costs – Order for costs. The Technology and Construction Court held that, following a judgment in favour of the defendant in a building contract dispute, as a matter of construction, an offer to settle was and/or should be treated as a defendant's CPR Pt 36 offer and costs were awarded to the defendant on an indemnity basis. 

European Union – Regulations. The Companies Court considered whether to grant certified copies of two judgments to the applicants to enable them to take enforcement proceedings in Spain against the first, second and fourth respondents. The court held that, on the true construction of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/200 and Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, there was no discretion to refuse the application. 

Building contract – Adjudication. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the claimant building contractor's appeal against the dismissal of its claim for injunctive and declaratory relief to restrain the defendant employers from proceeding with an adjudication to determine the sum properly due to the claimant, following termination of the contract. The judge had not erred in his construction of para 9(2) of Pt 1 of the Scheme for Construction Contracts. The defendants were entitled to proceed to adjudication in order to determine the correct value of the claims and counterclaims.