Latest Cases

European Union – Consumer protection. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of arts 1(2)(a) and 5 of Directive (EC) 1999/44 (on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees). The request had been made in proceedings between Ms Faber and the Hazet Garage concerning a claim for compensation for the damage caused by the lack of conformity which had allegedly marred the vehicle that Ms Faber had purchased at that garage. 

Company – Insolvency. The proceedings concerned a company (the company) in creditors' voluntary liquidation. The applicant creditor of the company applied for an order, under r 4.70(2) of the Insolvency Rules 1986, SI 1986/1925, varying or setting aside the decision of the first respondent liquidator and chairman at a meeting of the company's creditors to admit the applicant as a creditor for voting purposes for a lower sum than the applicant contended should have been admitted, with the result that a resolution for the appointment of a joint administrator was defeated. The Companies Court, in allowing the application, held that S had erred in treating a liquidated claim (the moiety) as an unliquidated claim and in the application of the Rules. The moiety claim was a provable debt under the Rules and the applicant had, on the evidence, established its claim. It had not been open to the respondents to use a sum by way of set off against the moiety claim. 

Solicitor – Partnership. On termination of a solicitors' partnership, the claimant sought payment of around £150,000 which he claimed stood to his credit in his capital account. Although there was no written partnership agreement, the judge held that, on the documentary evidence, and preferring the claimant's evidence, the capital payment was due. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the defendant's appeal as there had been no abandonment by the claimant of his pleaded case and the judge had been entitled to say that the documents had 'strongly' supported his finding that an agreement for the payment had been reached between the parties. 

Trade mark – Registration. The appellant sought to register the sign 'CANARY WHARF' in relation to a range of goods and services, including real estate affairs, construction services and building and landscape design. The examiner refused to register the sign, and the matter was considered by the Hearing Officer. The Hearing Officer agreed with the examiner's decision. The Chancery Division, in dismissing the appellant's appeal, held that the Hearing Officer had been correct to reject the application in its entirety under ss 3(1)c and 3(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act 1994. 

Value added tax – Exemptions. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (the tribunal) dismissed an appeal by the Revenue and Customs Commissioners against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) to allow an appeal by the Open University (the OU) against the Revenue's decision to refuse the claim by the British Broadcasting Corporation (the BBC) for repayment of VAT which it had charged and accounted for in respect of services which it had supplied to the OU during the appeal period at issue. The tribunal decided, among other things, that for the purposes of the education exemption in art 13A(1)(i) of Council Directive (EEC) 77/388, the BBC was another organisation defined by the United Kingdom as having similar objects. 

European Union – Social security. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that arts 27 and 84a of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, in conjunction with section R, point 1(a) and (b) of Annex VI to that regulation, should be interpreted as precluding legislation of a member state which did not allow the recipient of a pension awarded by that member state with retroactive effect of one year to become affiliated to compulsory health care insurance with the same retroactive effect, and which had the effect of depriving that person of all social security cover without all the relevant circumstances, in particular those relating to that person's personal situation, being taken into account. 

Company – Petition. The petitioner, C, presented a petition seeking an order that the first two respondents, B and G, purchase his one third shareholding in the third respondent company. The Companies Court held that, on the evidence, the first and second respondent directors of the company were subject to equitable constraints, and that none of the allegations made about C's conduct had justified his exclusion while leaving him locked into the company. Relief would be granted to C under s 996 of the Companies Act 2006. 

Value added tax – Appeal. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) ruled on: (i) an appeal by Romsave (Property) Services Ltd against a decision by the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) to reject its applications to bring late appeals in relation to eight decisions of the Revenue and Customs Commissioners concerning liability to VAT and misdeclaration penalties; and (ii) the Revenue's cross-appeal in respect of the one case in which the FTT had allowed the late appeal to proceed. 

Divorce – Financial provision. The applicant wife applied, pursuant to r 33.3(2)(b) of the Family Procedure Rules 2010, for general enforcement of an order which required, inter alia, the first respondent husband to pay her a lump sum. She sought a third party debt order against sums frozen in a bank account held by the second respondent brother of the husband. The Family Division, in the circumstances, made a final third party debt order against the bank in respect of the sums held by it in or deriving from the account in question. 

Gift – Donatio mortis causa. The claimant commenced proceedings seeking a declaration that his aunt had left him her house following a donatio mortis causa. Two of the charities which had been named beneficiaries in her will, unsuccessfully defended that claim and appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, clarified the requirements of a donatio mortis causa and warned against any extension of the doctrine towards other situations. The charities' appeal was allowed as two of the three requirements for a donatio mortis causa had not been met. The judge's hypothetical award for reasonable financial provision for the claimant under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependents) Act 1975 was upheld as there had been no error of law and the figure arrived at had not been outside the permissible bracket.