Latest Cases

Divorce – Financial provision. The proceedings concerned an application by the wife for financial remedy orders against the husband, in circumstances where the husband had brought into the relationship and marriage substantial wealth. The Family Division found that sharing the matrimonial property equally would be insufficient to meet the wife's needs. It then proceeded to consider the wife's needs and awarded her a lump sum of £5.6m which, in all the circumstances, was held to be fair to both parties. 

Criminal law – Trial. The defendant was convicted of three counts, including attempted rape, in respect of an attack on a female complainant at a park. The issue on his appeal against conviction was whether the judge had erred in dismissing a submission of no case to answer where, it was contended, there was insufficient evidence of the required intent for the case to go before the jury. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the judge had been fully entitled to reach the conclusion that he had. There had been sufficient evidence to warrant the case being considered by the jury. 

Income tax – Return. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (the tribunal) allowed the application by a taxpayer for judicial review of a decision by the Revenue and Customs Commissioners not to allow his claim for repayment of overpaid tax on the basis that the taxpayer's return had been received after the expiry of the four-year time limit imposed by s 34(1) of the Taxes Management Act 1970. The tribunal decided that, in line with existing authority, the time limit in that sub-section had no application to a self-assessment made by a taxpayer. Accordingly, the Revenue was ordered to process the taxpayer's tax return including the self-assessment in respect of the relevant year. 

Pension – Pension scheme. The claimant had been employed in the civil service before an outsourcing agreement resulted in the transfer of her employment to a private sector contractor. She retained her pension with the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme. She was later told that, under the scheme's rules, because she had resigned from her role, she was only entitled to take her preserved pension when she reached the age of 60, and not 55 as had previously been the case. Her complaint to the Pensions Ombudsman was dismissed while her appeal to the Chancery Division was allowed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the Cabinet Office's appeal and held that, on the true construction of the scheme's rules, 'resignation' was to be given a wide meaning that included both voluntary and involuntary departure from the civil service, including the transfer of an undertaking to the private sector. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The husband and wife had been married for 40 years. The husband had been very successful in business but latterly had developed problems with addiction. The wife issued divorce proceedings and applied for financial remedies with her divorce petition. The Family Division made an order in full and final settlement of the dispute between the parties. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's grant of leave to remain on the condition that she have no recourse to public funds. The Secretary of State subsequently agreed to remove the condition, such that there was no live issue directly between the parties. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), in dismissing the application, held that it was not appropriate to proceed to hear the application for judicial review substantively, as its resolution would be unlikely to be of any real assistance to a significant number of cases, if at all. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant Mauritian national sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision, refusing her application to stay as a spouse. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that the Secretary of State had fallen into error in failing to comply with the requirement to say that exceptional circumstances had or had not been considered and had been rejected, even if she had considered that the case was so weak as not to be arguable. No finding would be made as to the inevitably of outcome and the Secretary of State's decision would be quashed. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimants sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision to grant of leave to remain for 30 months, but to impose a condition prohibiting them from having recourse to public funds (the condition). The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), in dismissing the application, held that the Secretary of State had not irrationally failed to grant discretionary leave to remain. Further, with respect to the condition, she had not unlawfully failed to consider the exercise of her discretion, failed to comply with s 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 or breached the claimants' rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant local planning authority challenged a decision of the inspector appointed by the defendant Secretary of State to allow an appeal against its decision, refusing permission for development of 150 houses on land lying outside the boundaries of the Cotswold area of outstanding natural beauty (AONB). The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the inspector had not erred in equating valued landscape with designated landscape and had not adopted an unlawful approach to the meaning of valued. Further, the policy was not intended to cover views of the AONB from outside the AONB. 

Family proceedings – Costs. The Supreme Court held that none of the exceptions to the general approach applicable to awards of costs in children's cases as set out in Re T (Children) ([2012] 4 All ER 1137) applied in the present case. Accordingly, an order for costs made in the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, against the respondent local authority would be set aside.