Latest Cases

Value Added Tax – Supply of goods or services. Two sets of proceedings had concerned the repayment of VAT on management services provided to closed-end investment trusts companies, and a number of rulings had been made by the Chancery Division in respect of changes in the legislation that had affected the trusts' entitlement to reclaim VAT from the Revenue and Customs Commissioners. Both the trusts and the Revenue appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the appeals and, in so doing, clarified the scope of s 80(7) of the Value Added Tax Act 1994. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Fetim BV for annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) relating to opposition proceedings between Fetim BV and Solid Floor Ltd, established in London, United Kingdom, concerning the application by Fetim BV for registration of a figurative sign depicting 'Solidfloor The professional's choice' as a Community trade mark. 

Shipping – Demurrage. The claimant carriers contracted with the defendant shippers to carry goods in containers to a port in Bangladesh. The containers were not removed from the port, and the carriers claimed demurrage from the shippers. The Commercial Court held that, although the shippers had been in repudiatory breach of the contract, there had been no basis for supposing that the carrier had been suffering financial loss as a result of the detention of the containers. In the circumstances, keeping the contracts alive when the only purpose of doing so could be to claim demurrage had been wholly unreasonable. 

Company – Register of members. The defendant, who ran a tracing agency, requested a copy of the register of members of the claimant company (Burberry), for the purpose of assisting shareholders who might be unaware of their entitlements to reassert ownership or recover the benefit of their property. The defendant himself was not a member of Burberry. Burberry refused the request and applied for relief, under s 117(3) of the Companies Act 2006. The Companies Court, allowing the application, held, among other things, that the request was for an improper purpose. Accordingly, it directed Burberry not to comply with the request. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against orders for his extradition to Poland to serve an activated suspended sentence for burglary of items valued at approximately £50. The Administrative Court, in allowing the appeal, held that it would not be proportionate to order the appellant's extradition. The important factors in the present case included: (i) the limited value of the items stolen; (ii) the appellant had been subjected to lengthy electronically monitored curfews; (iii) the length of his sentence and the fact that he had had no idea that the sentence had been activated; and (iv) the delay in seeking extradition. 

European Union – Employment. In the course of proceedings between a Finnish trade union in the electricity sector and a company established in Poland, regarding pay claims arising out of employment relationships, the Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning, amongst other things, the interpretation of arts 56 and 57 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and art 3 of Directive (EC) 96/71 (concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services). 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimants sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision to refuse them leave to remain as Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) migrants. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the evidential requirements in para 41-SD(c)(iii) of Appendix A to the Immigration Rules could not be said to go beyond that which the Secretary of State might legitimately require for the purpose of showing that a business was genuine, and that the person conducting it and seeking entrepreneur status on the basis of having done so, was genuinely linked to that business. Accordingly, the claimant's challenge to the rationality of the requirement had to fail. 

Immigration – Leave to enter. The appellant Indian national appealed against the refusal of entry clearance. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the appeal, held that the causal connection between the historic injustice, namely, the effect of the policy removing the unrestricted right of entry for British overseas citizens from 1968 to 2003, and the appellant's circumstances had been established, notwithstanding the lacuna in the evidence. The courts should not be unduly rigorous in the application of the causation test, given that its significance was to redress the historic injustice. Accordingly, it was declared that the appellant was entitled to entry clearance. 

Power of attorney – Revocation. SB had Alzheimer's dementia and was in a nursing home. The Court of Protection considered an application by the Public Guardian to remove the two sons of SB from their role as attorneys under a lasting power of attorney. The Court held that it was appropriate to remove the two sons, and to appoint WY, SB's former neighbour, as a deputy to make decisions on SB's behalf, working jointly and severally with a panel deputy from a solicitors' firm. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant local planning authority's decision that it had no jurisdiction to grant consent for works, as they were not 'underground works' and fell outside the scope of s 3(2) of the London Squares Preservation Act 1931. The Planning Court, in dismissing the application, held that, on the proper construction of s 3(2) of the Act, none of the works were underground works or buildings.