Latest Cases

Fiduciary duty – Breach of duty. The Chancery Division, following a finding that the defendant had acted in breach of fiduciary duty to the claimant company, held an inquiry into the benefits received by the defendant as a result of the said breaches of fiduciary duty. 

Income tax – Return. The Upper Tribunal (Tax Chamber) ruled on various issues arising from an application by the taxpayer for judicial review of a demand from the Revenue and Customs Commissioners relating to his tax return, made pursuant to Ch 6 of Pt 4 of the Income Tax Act 2007. The tribunal decided that although the judicial review procedure used by the taxpayer to challenge the Revenue's demand had been inappropriate, having heard the parties' arguments, it would grant declarations to give effect to what the tribunal had decided. 

Contempt of court – Committal. The Admiralty and Commercial Court held that contempt had been proven against the respondent company, Corcosa, and two of its directors, following the complete ignoring of six GAFTA arbitration awards made against Corcosa. The second and third respondents would each be committed to prison for 18 months. 

Negligence – Hospital. The Queen's Bench Division on the issue of liability in relation to an injury suffered by the claimant as a result of the alleged negligence of the actions of the receptionist at the Accident and Emergency of the defendant hospital held that ultimately, it was the claimant who had to take responsibility for the consequences of the decision to leave the A and E department and not the defendant by its reception staff. 

Solicitor – Practice. The Chancery Division considered whether a statutory trust created when the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) intervened in the business of a limited liability partnership extended to money that could be shown to have belonged to the practice when it had been conducted in the name of the partnership that had proceeded it. The court held that, on the true construction of the word 'practice' in para 6(2) of Pt II of Sch 1 to the Solicitors Act 1974, the money in issue fell within the scope of the trust imposed on the applicant solicitor by the SRA. 

Income tax – Partnership. The 154 taxpayers issued judicial review proceedings, challenging the legality of partner payment notices given by the defendant Revenue and Customs Commissioners in the exercise of new powers under the Finance Act 2014. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that there had been no breach of natural justice and the decision to give the notices was neither unreasonable nor irrational. Further, there had been no breach of the taxpayers' legitimate expectations, or their rights under art 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights or art 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. A local authority had sought care orders in respect of two children, but the Recorder granted an order in respect of one child only. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the authority's appeal as the Recorder had erred in finding that the threshold criteria had not been crossed in respect of the other child and had erred in his approach towards making findings of fact. 

Conversion – Defence. The Queen's Bench Division gave judgment in favour of the claimant casino owner in respect of a £2m dishonoured cheques proffered by the defendant. IN so doing it rejected the defendant's argument that he had a gambling disorder and his defence of illegality. 

European Union – Value added tax. The Court of Justice gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that art 13(B)(a) of Sixth Council Directive (EEC) 77/388 had to be interpreted as meaning that the supply of services whereby an economic operator which was independent of a second-hand motor-vehicle dealer provides, in return for payment of a lump sum, a warranty covering mechanical breakdowns which could affect certain parts of that vehicle constituted an exempt insurance transaction within the meaning of that provision. 

Libel and slander – Defamatory words. The Queen's Bench Division, on preliminary issues in defamation proceedings, held amongst other things that s 1(1) of the Defamation Act 2013 provided that a statement was not defamatory of a person unless it had caused or would probably cause serious harm to that person's reputation, those being matters that had to be proved by the claimant on the balance of probabilities. The intention of Parliament was that claimants should have to go beyond showing a tendency to harm reputation. The court could have regard to all the relevant circumstances, including evidence of what had actually happened after publication.