Latest Cases

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. 

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. 

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 – Air transport. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling, deciding , amongst other things, that art 3(g) of Regulation (EC) No 785/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (on insurance requirements for air carriers and aircraft operators) should be interpreted as meaning that the occupant of a helicopter held by a Community air carrier, who had been carried on the basis of a contract between that air carrier and the occupant's employer in order to perform a specific task was a 'passenger' within the meaning of that provision. 

Misrepresentation – Fraudulent misrepresentation. The respondent insurer claimed damages for deceit against the appellant, in respect of an earlier personal injury claim which was subsequently settled. It pleaded that the statements as to the extent of the appellant's injuries and his accounts given to the medical experts constituted fraudulent misrepresentations. The judge set aside the settlement agreement. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the appellant's appeal, held, inter alia, that the judge had been wrong to have held that the respondent could succeed on the basis that, although it had not believed the misrepresentations, its decision as to how much to pay the appellant by way of settlement had been 'influenced' by the fear that the court might do so. 

Company – Merger. The claimant companies sought to carry out business in Mexico. The Mexican tax authority challenged a scheme used by the claimants, which they had adopted on the advice of the defendant. The claimants commenced proceedings against the defendant for, among other things, negligence. The Commercial Court held that, on the evidence, although the defendant had acted negligently, the second claimant had acted unreasonably in abandoning proceedings that it would have won, which would have avoided tax losses, and so its tax recovery claim failed. 

Negligence – Duty of care. There was a preliminary issue before the court regarding whether or not the defendant Secretary of State owed a non-delegable duty of care to the claimant so as to render it liable to the claimant in respect of any negligence acts or omissions on the part of those providing medical care at an immigration retention centre. The Queen's Bench Division held that all the elements of non-delegable duty had been made out and further it was fair and reasonable to conclude that the defendant owed the claimant a non-delegable duty.