Latest Cases

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. 

Guarantee – Solicitor. The Chancery Division considered a construction dispute in which the defendant solicitors' firm had admitted breach of duty. The court considered that, although the claimants were entitled to judgment, causation had not been made out, and accordingly they were entitled only to nominal damages. 

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. 

Immigration – Appeal. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed an appeal against a decision of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) that it did not have jurisdiction to consider an appeal. The original decision to refuse the appellant an EEA residence card had been made under the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations, SI 2006/1003. No one stop notice had been served under s 120 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. Therefore, the appellant had not been entitled to raise asylum and human rights grounds on appeal, and had been constrained to appealing the original decision under the Regulations. 

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. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. The Court of Protection held that the patient had capacity to determine her own medical treatment under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The consequence of that decision was that M would die. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Research Engineering & Manufacturing, Inc. (REM) against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market relating to invalidity proceedings between Nedschroef Holding BV and REM, concerning the application by the latter for registration of the word sign 'TRILOBULAR' as a Community trade mark. 

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. 

Customs and excise – Duties. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) dismissed the appeal by Xerox Ltd against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) to uphold a decision of the Revenue and Customs Commissioners that the correct classification for customs purposes of what were colloquially called 'ink sticks' was under heading 3125 of the Combined Nomenclature, as established by art 1 of Council Regulation (EEC) 2658/87. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. The Court of protection refused an application by the patient's neighbour, the applicant, to be appointed her deputy in place of the local authority. The applicant had failed to satisfy the court that it was in the patient's best interest and also the patient's wish was that the authority remain her deputy.