Latest Cases

Employment – Discrimination. The claimant contended that the Army Terms of Service Regulations 2007, SI 2007/3382, which provided that someone recruited into the army on his sixteenth birthday would have to serve six years before qualifying for transfer to the reserve, while someone recruited at 18 would only have to serve four years, were incompatible with Council Directive (EC) 2000/78. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that, on the proper construction of the statutory provisions, no contestable issue of age discrimination arose, as the Community legislator had granted a derogation power that the United Kingdom had exercised. 

Value added tax – Supply of goods or services. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (the tribunal) allowed the appeal by the Revenue and Customs Commissioners against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) which had decided that Finmeccanica Group Services SpA (FGS) was entitled to a refund of VAT made under Council Directive (EC) 2008/9 on the basis that it had not made a supply in the United Kingdom. The tribunal decided that the FTT fell into error in its initial approach to the issue in the present case; and that the activities to which the services provided by the taxpayer related fell within the fairs exception in art 53 of Directive (EC) 2006/112 and the place where they were supplied was in the UK. It followed that the taxpayer was not entitled to the refund claimed. 

Education – Higher education. The issue for determination was whether the ordinary residence criterion or the settlement criterion for student loans unjustifiably discriminated, under art 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, or breached the right to education, under art 2 of the First Protocol to the Convention. The Supreme Court held that the settlement criterion could not be justified, but there had been ample justification for the ordinary residence criterion. 

European Union – Free movement of movement. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding, among other things, that Council Directive (EC) 2004/83 should be interpreted as meaning that a residence permit, once granted to a refugee, could be revoked, either pursuant to art 24(1) of that directive, where there were compelling reasons of national security or public order within the meaning of that provision, or pursuant to art 21(3) of that directive, where there were reasons to apply the derogation from the principle of non-refoulement laid down in art 21(2) of the same directive. 

Rates – Separate hereditament. The Supreme Court, in allowing an appeal by the appellant valuation officer, held that premises demised to the respondent firm on the second and sixth storeys of a property were to be entered in the ratings list as separate hereditaments for the purpose of non-domestic rating. The Court set out the principles which were to be applied when different storeys under common occupation in the same block were to be entered in the rating list for the purpose of non-domestic rating and questioned the application of Gilbert v S Hickinbottom & Sons Ltd [1956] 2 All ER 101 in such cases. 

European Union – Equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of arts 1, 2(1), and (2)(a) and (b) of Council Directive (EC) 2000/43, deciding, among other things, that a person could claim indirect discrimination under that directive by association with a group that was disadvantaged, even if the person did not belong to the same ethnic or racial group. 

European Union – Intellectual property rights. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that art 8(3)(e) of Directive (EC) 2004/48 had to be interpreted as precluding a national provision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which allowed, in an unlimited and unconditional manner, a banking institution to invoke banking secrecy in order to refuse to provide, pursuant to art 8(1)(c) of that directive, information concerning the name and address of an account holder. 

Pension – Pension schemes. On an appeal by a taxpayer against an assessment to a tax charge following withdrawal of approval of its pensions scheme, the Supreme Court held that the tax charge under s 591C of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act, in a case that fell under s 591B(1), fell to be assessed in the chargeable period with effect from which the approval ceased to have effect in accordance with the terms of the statutory notice of withdrawal. Accordingly, the Revenue and Customs Commissioners had not been entitled to assess the taxpayer's scheme to tax under s 591B(1) in 2000, when the withdrawal had been notified, where the withdrawal notice had specified that the withdrawal of approval was to take effect from 1996. 

Prison – Prisoner. The claimant of Kurdish Sorani descent was a serving prisoner denied access to books, DVDs and CDs in Kurdish. The Administrative Court, in dismissing his application for judicial review, held the defendant Secretary of State had no blanket prohibition on friends and family sending prisoners such items. However, on the basis of authority, his claim succeeded in respect of books only. 

Social security – Disability living allowance. The Supreme Court referred to the European Court of Justice questions arising from the issue of whether the United Kingdom was precluded, by Council Regulation (EC) no 1408/71 (on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, self-employed persons and members of their families moving within the Community) from imposing a requirement of residence in Great Britain as a condition of entitlement to disability living allowance and thus depriving a claimant who had gone to live in another Member State of that benefit.