Latest Cases

Particulars of claim – Amendment. NatWest had lost a cheque that had been cashed by the claimant so he had not received the money. The claimant issued proceedings in negligence against the bank, by which time it had become apparent that the account against which the cheque had been drawn had been overdrawn when the cheque had been written. The claimant had sought to amend his particulars of claim to contend that the bank would have extended the overdraft or contacted the account holder to arrange transfer of funds had NatWest presented the cheque. He was refused permission to amend his particulars as the amendments were unsustainable and the claim was dismissed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that, on the evidence that had been before him, the judge had been right not to grant permission to amend the claim. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The proceedings concerned three appeals, all of which related to powers exercisable in connection with the grant of a freezing order in respect of the defendant's assets, including, an order for disclosure made by the first judge, which the second judge refused to set aside, and an order by the third judge that the claimants gave a cross-undertaking unlimited in amount and that it be fortified. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held, inter alia, that the first judge had had jurisdiction to have made the order that he had and the second judge had had jurisdiction to have refused to set it aside. Neither judge had exercised his discretion in an impermissible manner. As to the extent of the cross-undertaking, the third judge had been entitled to have exercised her discretion in the way that she had. However, in respect of fortification, her conclusions were unsustainable on the evidence. 

Income tax – Pension. The defendants were tried on an indictment containing nine counts relating to two schemes allegedly set up with the dishonest intention of securing the payment of income tax relief at source from the Revenue and Customs Commissioners. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, dismissed an appeal by the prosecution, under s 58 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, against the judge's ruling upholding submissions of no case to answer made in respect of nine of the defendants. The court gave general procedural guidance about the management of legal issues in complex cases. 

Immigration – Appeal. The Secretary of State had ordered the deportation of the three respondents as foreign criminals. The First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (FTT) had allowed their appeals based on their relationships with their children, who were British citizens. The Secretary of State's appeal had been dismissed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the Secretary of State's appeal in two of the cases where the FTT had made a number of errors in the correct application of Pt 13 of the Immigration Rules (HC 395 as amended) to the circumstances. The third appeal was dismissed as the FTT had been entitled to find that the circumstances had been exceptional. 

European Union – Environment. The claimant air transport operator licensed in Switzerland contended that European Parliament and Council Decision 377/2013/EU (derogating temporarily from Directive (EC) 2003/87 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community), which had partially suspended the operation of an emissions trading scheme for aircraft, was a breach of the EU law principle of equal treatment. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division held that the extent of the exception to that general principle remained in doubt and referred two questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling. 

Income tax – Investment income. The taxpayer had made withdrawals from life insurance policies with Zurich Life (Zurich) that he had invested in. Under the Income Tax (Trading and Other Income) Act 2005, each withdrawal had produced a deemed gain, with the result that he was liable to pay some US$560,000 in tax to the Revenue and Customs Commissioners. That large tax liability was the direct result of the taxpayer selecting the wrong option on the claim form provided by Zurich. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) allowed the taxpayer's appeal against an amendment of his tax returns by the Revenue on the ground of rectification alone. 

European Union – Civil and commercial matters. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that art 288 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and arts 3(3) and 6 of Directive (EC) 2000/35 and arts 7 and 12 of Directive 2011/7 should be interpreted as not precluding a member state which had made use of the option under art 6(3)(b) of Directive 2000/35 from adopting, during the period prescribed for transposition of Directive 2011/7, legislative provisions, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which were capable of modifying, to the detriment of a creditor of the state, the interest on a debt arising out of the performance of a contract concluded before 8 August 2002. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant sought an order quashing the decision of the inspector appointed by the first defendant Secretary of State, dismissing its appeal against the second defendant local planning authority's refusal of outline planning permission for a development including 250 dwellings. The Planning Court, in dismissing the application, held that the inspector had interpreted the relevant policy correctly and applied it lawfully, and her reasons were unimpeachable. Further, the inspector had not misunderstood the policies or overlooked any policy she ought to have considered under para 49 of the National Planning Policy Framework. Her conclusions were not in any way confusing, unclear or contradictory. 

Medical practitioner – Professional Conduct Committee. The claimant psychologists were the subjects of allegations which had been referred to the defendant Health and Care Professions Council's Conduct and Competence Committee (the CCC). The Council made further allegations against them, which were also referred. The claimants sought judicial review on the basis that there was no power to refer the further allegations. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the applications, held that art 22(6) of the Health and Social Work Profession Order 2001, SI 2002/254, fell to be interpreted in such a way as to permit the Council to refer further allegations to its Investigative Committee as a composite entity, in which circumstances, art 26(2) and (5) could be deployed to make a further reference to the CCC. 

Practice – Companies. The company and the administrators of the scheme (the applicants) sought declarations concerning the proper construction of a scheme of arrangement in respect of the company and its parent. Following the passage of the 'Bar Date', there were two main groups of people who thought might have claims, were those who had lost money investing in shares in the parent company and customers who had been mis-sold payment protection insurance (PPI). The Chancery Division (Companies Court) made various declarations on the basis of whether the respondents were creditors of the scheme.