Latest Cases

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. 

Adoption – Dispensing with consent of parent or guardian. The Family Court made an adoption order regarding E, a two-year old boy, where the mother was a recovering heroin addict with alcohol issues and had been in a relationship with E's father, who had behaved violently to her. 

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. 

Privilege – Legal professional privilege. The present proceedings concerned whether certain passages in the claimants' re-amended particulars of claim should be struck out on the basis that they referred to matters protected by legal professional privilege. The Chancery Division, in dismissing the application, held, inter alia, that privilege in the relevant documents had been waived by the fourth defendant and, failing that, the third defendant. 

Value added tax – Input tax. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (the tribunal) dismissed the appeal by the taxpayer company against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) that the fact that missing trader intra-community fraud had not been established by the Revenue and Customs Commissioners did not preclude the Revenue from denying the recovery of input tax. However, the tribunal further decided that the FTT had been wrong in its finding that the taxpayer should have carried further checks 'down the chain', as that would have been a 'formidable task'. 

Limitation of action – Extension of time limit. The claimant claimed damages for personal injury alleged to have been inflicted upon her as a result of sexual abuse committed against her by the defendant, from about 1974 and 1982. In 2013, at a trial of preliminary issues, the judge dismissed the action, having refused to exercise the court's discretion, under s 33 of the Limitation Act 1980, to order that the provisions of s 11 of the Act should not apply. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the claimant's appeal. It held that the judge had not erred in law and he had been entitled to reach the overall conclusion that he had in deciding whether to exercise the discretion. 

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. 

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. 

Judgment – Enforcement. In earlier proceedings, the court found against a number of the defendants (together, the Ruperti defendants). The Ruperti defendants had difficulties in paying sums owed to a group of claimants. A settlement agreement was established. The Commercial Court considered various issues arising from the settlement agreement and made rulings on its application. 

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.