Latest Cases

Family proceedings – Divorce. The Family Division held that given the absence in jurisdiction through s 37 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 and the lack of evidence in regard to the wife's dealing with the assets, the husband's application for reinstatement of freezing orders previously made would be dismissed. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

Housing – Homeless person. The European Court of Human Rights held that the determination of the applicant's entitlement to accommodation under Pt VII of the Housing Act 1996 had been a determination of a 'civil right' for the purposes of art 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights and the local housing authority's decision that it had discharged its duty to her under Pt VII of the Act had been subject to judicial scrutiny of sufficient scope to satisfy the requirements of art 6(1). 

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. 

Immigration – Detention. The Supreme Court in dismissing the appellant's appeal against his conviction for membership of a proscribed organisation held that the judge had been correct in allowing evidence of the appellants Swedish asylum hearing and in dismissing the appellant's case based on Council Directive (EC) 2005/85 (on minimum standards on procedures for granting and withdrawing refugee status). 

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. 

Practice – Appeal. The parties had agreed by consent that an appeal against a judge's decision that the respondent was not being deprived of her liberty should be allowed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, made a consent order. The judge then reserved the matter to himself and delivered a new judgment, which stated that the Court of Appeal had acted ultra vires in making a consent order without a hearing. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on the substantive issue and held that the original court had not acted ultra vires.