Latest Cases

Arbitration – Adjudication. The Technology and Construction Court considered an application by the claimant for summary judgment, seeking to enforce two decisions of an adjudicator concerning delay in a construction contract made on the GC/Works/1 Single Stage Design & Build (1998) with Amendment 1 (2000) standard form. The court held that there was nothing in the points raised by the defendant, and the decisions would be enforced. 

Libel and slander – Defamatory statement. The Queen's Bench Division held that in a defamation action by the claimant against the defendant, both union members, the claimant was entitled to be compensated for damage to his reputation as the attribution of forgery, especially in the context of union membership was not something which might be lightly disregarded. 

Income tax – Corporation tax. The Chancery Division allowed the claimant company's application for an interim payment in a dispute concerning the recovery of unlawfully levied tax paid in respect of certain dividends under Case V of Schedule D to the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988. The Chancery Division held that the claim for an interim payment succeeded, save in relation to certain dividends sourced from a share premium account. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action by Petco Animal Supplies Stores, Inc., (Petco) against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Domingo Gutiérrez Ariza and Petco concerning the application by Petco for registration of the word sign 'PETCO' as a Community trade mark. 

Capital gains tax – Settlement. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (the tribunal) allowed the appeal by the taxpayer beneficiaries of a family trust against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)(the FTT) to reject the taxpayers' appeals against closure notices by the Revenue and Customs Commissioners containing amendments to the taxpayers' self-assessment tax returns for 2002-03. The tribunal decided that no tax liability had been incurred in respect of the capital distributions at issue as s 90 of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 had not applied to the transfer by virtue of the (unintended) effect of s 90(5)(a) of that Act. 

Human rights – Right to liberty and security. The European Court of Human Rights held that there had been no violation of art 5(4) of the European Convention on Human Rights in proceedings leading to the grant of warrants for the applicants' further detention under Sch 8 to the Terrorism Act 2000, in particular, absent express legislative provisions for the appointment of a special advocate. Further, search warrants issued could not be described as excessively wide and they had been necessary in a democratic society, within the meaning of art 8(2) of the Convention. 

Costs – Order for costs. The Chancery Division ruled that the Revenue and Customs Commissioners should pay to the test claimants in the FII group litigation 75% of their costs of the first of three references to the Court of Justice of the European Union and 65% of their costs of liability proceedings in the High Court and the Court of Appeal. 

Social security – Disability living allowance. The claimant appealed against the dismissal of his application for judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision to adopt a 20m walking threshold for personal independence payment enhanced rate mobility. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, rejected claims that the consultation had not provided a proper opportunity to comment on the threshold and had not given sufficient information to enable intelligent responses. 

Company – Scheme of arrangement. The Chancery Division considered an application for approval of a cross-border merger. It held that, notwithstanding that there were outstanding conditions, the merger was one that the court ought to approve. 

Limitation of action – Accrual of cause of action. The appellant's claim for unpaid salary had been only partly successful as the judge found that the majority of the claim was time-barred as the contract provided for monthly payment of salary. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed his appeal. The judge had erred in deciding the limitation issue before hearing the appellant's application to strike out the limitation defence and, on the facts, the breach of contract that had given rise to the cause of action had been the respondent's failure to make payment of the whole sum due at the point when the appellant had left its employ.