Latest Cases

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. 

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. 

Income tax – Profits. In dismissing the taxpayer's appeal, the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber upheld the decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) that the profit of £2.21m realised by the taxpayer following the sale in the market of a floating-rate promissory note was profit of an income nature, subject to income tax in the taxpayer's hand, under Case III of Sch D to the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

Social security – Housing benefit. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant local authority's decision to include the care component of his disability living allowance (DLAc) in calculating his income for the purposes of assessing a discretionary house payment. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that the authority's policy of always taking into account DLAc as income when assessing awards of discretionary house payment was unlawful, as it failed to consider the Department of Work and Pensions' guidance. Further, it amounted to discrimination, contrary to art 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights and s 29(6) of the Equality Act 2010. 

Sentence – Imprisonment. The claimant prisoner serving a sentence of imprisonment for public protection sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision, refusing his transfer to open conditions in accordance with his absconder policy, which required exceptional circumstances for transfer if a prisoner had failed to return from release on temporary licence. The Divisional Court, in allowing the application, held that the absconder policy was inconsistent and irrational in the light of the Secretary of State's directions to the Parole Board, which required phased release via open conditions to test whether a prisoner could be safely released into the community. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against orders for his extradition to Poland to serve four years and six months' imprisonment for driving with excess alcohol, obstructing a constable in the execution of his duty and VAT fraud. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the drink-driving offence was an offence in the United Kingdom and new evidence would have had no impact on the application of art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Further, the judge had been entitled to find the appellant was a fugitive and that he had deliberately absented himself from his trial.