Latest Cases

Criminal law – Offensive behaviour at regulated football match. High Court of Justiciary: Refusing appeals by two appellants, who were convicted of offensive behaviour at a football match in that they sang a song in support of a proscribed terrorist organisation, and who argued that their rights under art 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights (no punishment without law) had been infringed because they could not know that singing the song had potential criminal consequences, the court held that the appellants were well aware of what they were engaging in and their conduct was precisely what the law was aimed at. 

Landlord and tenant – Premises. The issue on the appeal was whether a right to manage (RTM) company could acquire the management of more than one set of premises, as defined in s 72 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that references in s 72 of the Act to 'premises' were to a single, self-contained building or part of the building, and that, likewise, references to 'the premises' or 'premises' or 'any premises' in ss 73, 74, 78 and 79 and other provisions of the Act were references to a single, self-contained building or part of the building. Accordingly, it was not open to an RTM company to acquire the right to manage more than one self-contained building or part of a building. 

Value added tax – Recovery of sums overpaid. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber): (i) confirmed that the Revenue and Customs Commissioners could enter into agreements relating to repayments pursuant to s 80 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994; and (ii) suggested that such agreements were binding even if the position agreed by the Revenue was then judicially found to be wrong. 

Insolvency – Administration order. The applicant, in his capacity as a creditor of the company for the purposes of para 12(1)(c) of Sch B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986, sought an administration order to take effect retrospectively from November 2010. The court was being asked to make a retrospective order which would cure the fact of the void appointments of the purported present liquidators, by casting back over four years and validating the actions of those individuals, not as liquidators, but as administrators, in the intervening period, with a view to the company being moved by those freshly appointed administrators into creditors' voluntary liquidation. The Chancery Division held that, in the circumstances, the only appropriate outcome for the present administration application was to make an order for the compulsory winding-up of the company. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against orders for his extradition to Poland to serve a sentence of 18 months' imprisonment for credit card fraud, fraud by false representation, using a false ID card and providing falsified customs clearance documents committed in 2001. The Administrative Court, in allowing the appeal, held that the judge had been entitled to conclude that the delay had not been culpable. However, he had erred in failing to have regard or sufficient regard to the impact of the appellant's extradition on his son, particularly, as the circumstances went to reduce the public interest in the appellant's extradition. 

Bank – Transaction. The respondent brought a claim against the appellant bank, alleging dishonest assistance, knowing receipt and a proprietary right to the proceeds of sale in respect of an art collection, which had been owned by her deceased father, but had been sold by her sister's friend. The proceeds could be traced to the bank through a number of transactions. The Chief Justice dismissed the claim. The Court of Appeal of Gibraltar held in favour of the respondent. The issue was whether the bank had been on constructive notice of impropriety. The Privy Council, dismissing the bank's appeal, agreed with the conclusions of the Court of Appeal for the most part that the bank had been on constructive notice of impropriety. 

Housing – Homeless person. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant local authority's decision to refuse him public housing on the basis that he lacked capacity. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that it was bound by authority to the effect that that there was no purpose in making an offer of accommodation to a person so disabled that he was unable to comprehend or evaluate the offer. Further, under the Housing Act 1996 and the National Assistance Act 1948, a need for accommodation was a prerequisite. As the claimant continued to reside with his father, his need for accommodation was met. 

European Union – Regulations. The General Court of the European Union allowed the action brought by Mr Chafiq Ayadi for annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 954/2009, amending Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 (imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban), in so far as that act concerned Mr Ayadi. 

Local government – Council tax. The appellant appealed against the decision of a panel of the Valuation Tribunal for England (the Panel), finding that she had not produced any substantive evidence to support her contention that her flat had truly been derelict and, therefore, it had remained a hereditament for council tax purposes. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the hearing had not been unfair and the Panel had applied the correct legal test. Further, the Panel's decision had not been wrong, irrational and in breach of the appellant's human rights. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Family Court made a declaration of parentage in favour of X, in circumstances where a fertility clinic was found to have mislaid the requisite consent form relating to parenthood prior to treatment. X was the partner of Y who had conceived the child, Z, using donor sperm following treatment at the clinic.