Latest Cases

Immigration – Asylum. The claimant challenged the defendant Secretary of State's certification of her fresh claim for asylum as being clearly unfounded. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that there was no doubt that the decision to certify had been unlawful and that the claimant should not have been removed from the United Kingdom, as she had been. The Secretary of State was directed to ensure that the claimant might re-enter the UK. 

Value added tax – Value added tax. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art 148(a) of Council Directive (EC) 2006/112. The request had been made in proceedings between 'Fast Bunkering Klaipėda' UAB ('FBK') and the State Tax Inspectorate under the Finance Ministry of Lithuania concerning the status of supplies of fuel to intermediaries acting in their own name with regard to VAT. 

European Union – EU institutions. The General Court of the European Union upheld the action brought by SV Capital OU (SV) for annulment of Decision 2014-C1-02 of the Board of Appeal of the European Supervisory Authorities which had dismissed the action brought by SV against the decision of the European Banking Authority to reject SV's request for an investigation to be initiated into the Estonian and Finnish financial sector supervisory authorities, pursuant to art 17(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 as a result of an alleged breach of EU law. The General Court decided that the Board of Appeal had lacked the competence to decide on that appeal on the basis of art 60(1) of that regulation. 

European Union – Freedom of movement. The Court of Justice gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that art 24 of Directive (EC) 2004/38 and art 4 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004, as amended, should be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a member state under which nationals of other member states who were in a situation such as that referred to in art 14(4)(b) of that directive were excluded from entitlement to certain 'special non-contributory cash benefits' within the meaning of art 70(2) of Regulation 883/2004, which also constituted 'social assistance' within the meaning of art 24(2) of Directive 2004/38, although those benefits were granted to nationals of the member state concerned who were in the same situation. 

Landlord and tenant – Lease. The Chancery Division held that the claimant was entitled to summary judgment on its claim against the first defendant (Dreamland) for delivery up of a mural, attributed to Banksy, which had been removed by Dreamland from the building of which it was the tenant. Dreamland had no reasonable prospect of establishing that it had been entitled, let alone obliged, to remove the mural in compliance with its repairing obligation under the lease. Further, the contention that, once removed from the building in compliance with its covenants under the lease, the mural became the property of Dreamland, rather than the landlord, by virtue of an implied term in the lease, was unsustainable as a matter of law. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant challenged the decision of the inspector appointed by the first defendant Secretary of State to grant planning permission for, among other things, the demolition of a single-storey former nightclub and the erection of a three-storey building with commercial and residential uses. The Planning Court dismissed the claimant's six grounds of challenge, including that the inspector had failed to take into account, as a material consideration, the harm the development would do to the viability of the claimant's tavern. 

European Union – Jurisdiction. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling relating to the interpretation of art 5(1) and (3), and Chapter II, Section 5 (arts 18 to 21), and art 60(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001. The request had been made in proceedings between Holterman Ferho Exploitatie BV and three of its subsidiary companies and Mr Spies von Büllesheim concerning the latter's liability as manager of those companies and a claim that he be ordered to pay damages. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant challenged the first defendant Secretary of State's decision, dismissing his appeal against the second defendant local planning authority's refusal to permit non-compliance with a condition previously attached to earlier permission. The Planning Court, in allowing the application, held that the Secretary of State had failed to give adequate reasons for his decision and had failed to grapple with a principle issue adequately. 

European Union – Value added tax. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding, among other things, that art 24(1) of Council Directive (EC) 2006/112 should be interpreted as meaning that the term 'supply of services' included subscription contracts for the supply of consulting services to an undertaking, in particular those of a legal, commercial or financial nature, under which a supplier had agreed to be available to the customer during the term of the contract. 

Practice – Striking out. The Chancery Division ruled that the claimants' action, concerning joint venture agreements allegedly entered into by the deceased, would be struck out as an abuse of process where the claimants had failed to comply with the guidelines in Aldi Stores Ltd v WSP London Ltd[2007] All ER (D) 433 (Nov), by seeking directions from the judge as to their claims against the deceased estate in circumstances where a similar claim had been dismissed. An inexcusable failure to follow the Aldi guidelines was a heavyweight factor in favour of a finding of abuse of process.