Latest Cases

Income Tax – Relief. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (the tribunal) dismissed the appeals by partners in two partnerships against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) which had refused the partners loss relief in relation to their expenditure on certain films on the basis that they had not been carrying on a trade in the relevant periods. The tribunal further rejected the partners' applications for judicial review. 

Practice – Summary judgment and strike out. The claimant and companies related to him brought proceedings against the defendant personal representative of CG, who was deceased. They contended that CG had caused them to enter into a settlement agreement, concluding a dispute, by means of false representations. The Commercial Court considered whether the claims as presently made and proposed to be made had a real prospect of success. It struck out a number of the claims as having no real prospect of success. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. The Official Solicitor, as G's litigation friend, appealed against a costs order made by the President of the Court of Protection. By that order, the first respondent (ANL) was to pay 30% of G's costs and 30% of the local authority's costs of and incidental to an application made by ANL to be joined as a party to the proceedings. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the appeal. It held, inter alia, that it could not be said that ANL's application or the decision to refuse it had been steps taken outside of the Court of Protection Rules 2007, SI 2007/1744. Accordingly, the President had been required to consider costs in accordance with the Rules. In having done so, he had not exceeded the broad ambit of his discretion such that he had been wrong. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimants sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's failure to decide their applications for settlement and indefinite leave to remain for nine years. They subsequently challenged her decisions on their applications. The Administrative Court held that the Secretary of State's delay had given rise to substantial breaches of her obligation to respect each claimant's private and family life for which they were entitled to substantial damages. Further, she had erred in considering the second and third claimants' spent convictions in determining their applications. The first claimant having died before judgment, permission was granted for an order to carry on his claims. 

Competition – Merger. The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) had found there to have been a relevant merger situation under s 22(1) of the Enterprise Act 2002 arising from the appellant's acquisition of cross-channel ferries from SeaFrance's liquidator and its employment of the majority of former SeaFrance employees, as a consequence of a statutory indemnity payment to the appellant for employing those redundant workers. The decision was upheld by the Competition Appeals Tribunal. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the appeal as the CMA's finding that upon such mass re-employment there had been in reality a transfer, or a transfer 'in effect' by SeaFrance, had been irrationally wrong and one that could not properly have been made. 

Company – Administration. In the course of proceedings concerning the administration of companies connected to the Lehman Brothers group, the Companies Court made a number of rulings to determine the claims that might be made against a surplus of assets before any return to the creditors. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the appeal against two of those rulings and upholding the remainder, considered, inter alia, the ranking in the administration of unsubordinated debt, whether currency conversion claims were non-provable liabilities, whether accrued rights to statutory interest under r 2.88(7) of the Insolvency Rules 1986, SI 1986/1925 survived the transition from administration to liquidation and whether the obligation of contributories, under s 74(1) of the Insolvency Act 1986, extended to statutory interest and non-provable liabilities. 

Teaching – Professional competence. Court of Session: Refusing a teacher's appeal against a decision of the General Teaching Council for Scotland's Disciplinary Panel, finding that she had fallen short of the standards expected of a registered teacher, was unfit to teach, and that her name should be removed from the Register of Teachers, the court rejected all the appellant's grounds of appeal, including contentions that the panel failed to explain the reasoning behind their findings, failed to deal with the evidence properly, giving a decision which did not rest on a reasonable foundation, and failed to record the evidence properly, demonstrating bias or apparent bias and/or a failure to discharge their duty to consider all the evidence. 

Health – Health care. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman's decision to uphold the conclusions in her final report on the basis of erroneous treatment of a legal issue. The Administrative Court held that there had been no error of law in the report, as the Ombudsman had not been obliged, and it had not been necessary, to consider the issue in order to take a view on whether she had had sufficient evidence before her to have concluded that the interested party had been guilty of maladministration. 

Medical practitioner – Professional conduct committee. The Fitness to Practise Panel of the first defendant General Medical Council found that the second defendant medical practitioner's admitted dishonesty amounted to misconduct, but that her fitness to practise was not impaired and that it was not appropriate to issue a formal warning. The claimant Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care referred that decision to the Administrative Court. The court found that the decision not to issue U with a warning for her misconduct had been unduly lenient, given the nature of the misconduct. However, it dismissed the other grounds of challenge. 

Executry estate – Wrongful administration of estate. Court of Session: Dismissing an action in which the pursuer sued the former executors of her former husband's executry estate, alleging wrongful administration of the estate, the court concluded that the defenders were not in breach of any duty towards the estate such that they should be found personally liable to the pursuer as judicial factor.