Latest Cases

European Union – Customs and excise. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that the Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, as amended, should be interpreted as meaning that a reading device for electronic books which had a translation or dictionary function should, where that function was not its principal function, that being a matter for the national court to ascertain, be classified under subheading 8543 70 90 and not under subheading 8543 70 10. 

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 – 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. 

Immigration – Deportation. The respondent Secretary of State decided to deport the appellant to the Gambia, pursuant to s 32 of the UK Borders Act 2007. His appeals against that decision were dismissed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appellant's appeal, held that the conclusion of the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), that the appellant's relationship with a woman had not reached the stage at which it could be described as family life, was not insupportable or perverse. Further, none of the factors on which the appellant could rely as militating against his deportation were unusual, nor could it possibly be said that, taken together, they amounted to very compelling circumstances that could outweigh the public interest in deportation. 

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. 

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. 

Employment – Discrimination. The claimant brought a claim before the employment tribunal (the tribunal) against the respondent nursery for indirect discrimination on the grounds of religious belief. She asserted that she had been discriminated against because of the dress code said to be imposed by the respondent which prevented her from wearing a full-length jilbab (a garment worn as part of her Muslim religious beliefs) and meant that she was unable to accept the respondent's offer of employment. The tribunal, in dismissing her claim, found that the requirement that garments did not go to the floor, thereby creating a possible trip hazard, was not a requirement or criterion which had placed Muslim women, or the claimant in particular, at a disadvantage and, in any event, it had been a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. The Employment Appeal, in dismissing the claimant's appeal, held, among other things, that the tribunal had not erred in its identification of the relevant provision, criterion or practice and had not made a perverse finding of fact. 

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. 

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. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by AgriCapital Corporation (AgriCapital) against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), relating to opposition proceedings between AgriCapital Corp. and agri.capital GmbH, concerning the application by the latter company for registration of the word sign 'AGRI.CAPITAL' as a Community trade mark.