Latest Cases

Pension – Pension scheme. The applicant had been dissatisfied with the amount of a tax free cash lump sum paid to him under his pension which was administered by the respondent company. He took his complaint to the Pensions Ombudsman, who rejected his assertion that the respondent had wrongly deducted from the lump sum an amount due under a loan secured against the policy. The judge then refused the applicant permission to appeal against that determination. The Chancery Division, in refusing the applicant's request for the court to reconsider that refusal, held that, in the circumstances of the unpaid loan which had been secured against his policy, it had been unsurprising that the lump sum had been reduced. 

Sentence – Imprisonment. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, increased the offender's sentence for offences of possession of a prohibited firearm from a total of 20 months' imprisonment to a total of five years' imprisonment, in circumstances where the sentencing judge had been very much affected by a medical report on the critical condition of the offender's infant daughter. 

European Union – Value Added Tax. The Court of Justice of the European Union allowed the action by the European Commission for a declaration that by applying a reduced VAT rate of 3% to the supply of electronic books, Luxembourg had failed to fulfil its obligations under arts 96 to 99, 110 and 114 of Council Directive (EC) 2006/112 (on the common system of value added tax), as amended, read in conjunction with Annexes II and III to that directive and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 282/2011 (laying down implementing measures for Directive 2006/112). 

European Union – Value Added Tax. The Court of Justice of the European Union granted the application by the European Commission for a declaration that, by applying a reduced rate of VAT on the supply of digital books (or electronic books), France had failed to fulfil its obligations under arts 96 and 98 of Council Directive (EC) 2006/112 (on the common system of value added tax), as amended, read in conjunction with Annexes II and III to that directive and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 282/2011 (laying down implementing measures for Directive (EC) 2006/112). 

Prison – Life sentence. The claimant prisoner sought judicial review of the decision to classify him as high escape risk. The Divisional Court, in allowing the application in part, held that, although information relating to the work the claimant had done in prison and the reports in his favour had been omitted from consideration in the initial decision, a subsequent review had been entitled to conclude that the additional information would not materially have affected the decision. Further, the reasons had been adequate and there had been no conflation of the tests for determining security classification and escape risk classification. 

Sentence – Imprisonment. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that a suspended sentenced imposed for the offence of attempted robbery had been unduly lenient and substituted it for one of five and-a-half years' detention in a young offender institution. The court held that the recorder had given too much weight to the offender's circumstances and the fact that it was his first offence and an offence which had been well out of character. 

European Union – Regulations. The Court of Justice of the European Union dismissed the appeal by Mr Ahmed Abdelaziz Ezz and others (the applicants) against the judgment of the General Court of the European Union, by which the General Court had dismissed their action for annulment, first, of Council Decision 2011/172/CFSP (concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt) and, secondly, of Council Regulation (EU) No 270/2011 (concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt), in so far as those acts concerned the applicants. 

Sentence – Confiscation order. The proceedings concerned whether a substantial breach of s 15(2) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, in conjunction with a substantial breach of s 14 of the Act, rendered the subsequent confiscation proceedings invalid, even if they were completed within two years. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, allowed the defendant's appeal against the confiscation order, in circumstances where the combination of delays and breaches by the prosecution was such as to have deprived the court of the power to make such an order. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's refusal of his application for leave to remain as a Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) migrant. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), in dismissing the application, held that the submission that Rodriguez (Flexibility Policy) ([2013] UKUT 42 (IAC)) applied at the date of the decision was totally without merit. Further, the claimant had not submitted a specified document, but a document which had not included the mandatory information and the Secretary of State had been under no obligation to make an enquiry of the claimant as to why he had not done so. 

European Union – Companies. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that art 19(1) of Third Council Directive (EEC) 78/855 should be interpreted as meaning that a 'merger by acquisition' in art 3(1) of that directive resulted in the transfer to the acquiring company of the obligation to pay a fine imposed by final decision adopted after the merger by acquisition for infringements of employment law committed by the acquired company prior to that merger.