Latest Cases

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. 

Legal aid – Criminal cases. The claimants appealed against the Divisional Court's decision, dismissing their application for judicial review of the defendant Lord Chancellor's decision to introduce a tendering process for 527 contracts for solicitors to provide duty provider work (DPW). They contended that the Lord Chancellor had erred in failing to consider costs which would have to be incurred by providers in restructuring their affairs to put themselves in a position to bid for and implement the proposed contracts. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, for reasons which, in substance, reflected the judgment of the Divisional Court, dismissed the appeal. 

Solicitor – Contract. The claimant firm of solicitors brought a claim against the defendant for unpaid fees for work done on her behalf in matrimonial proceedings. The defendant counterclaimed, alleging, among other things, professional negligence by the claimant. The claimant sought summary judgment on its claim and a dismissal of the defendant's counterclaim. The Chancery Division granted summary judgment in favour of the claimant where the defendant's defences to the claims had no real prospect of success. The defendant's counterclaim was dismissed. 

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. 

Income tax – Penalty. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) allowed the applications by the Revenue and Customs Commissioners pursuant to para 50 of Sch 36 to the Finance Act 2008 for imposition of a penalty on a taxpayer for failure to comply with information notices issued by the Revenue. The tribunal decided that the penalty under that provision would be nearly 100% of the income tax due and 100% of the inheritance tax due. 

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. 

Arbitration – Adjudication. The parties contracted for the defendant construction company to carry out work on the claimants' home. A dispute arose and it was agreed that it would be determined by adjudication. The adjudicator made a decision in which, among other things, the claimants were to commence proceedings for the matters still in dispute. The defendant applied to have the proceedings struck out. The Technology and Construction Court held that, on the evidence, it was not open to the claimants to have certain matters re-decided, and that the claim would be set aside and the proceedings stayed. 

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. 

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. 

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.