Latest Cases

Land – Acquisition of title by possession. The issue on the appeal was whether an application for a person to be registered, under the Land Registration Act 2002, as the proprietor of a registered estate in land by reason of a period of adverse possession was valid, where part of the relevant period of possession consisted of the occupation of a residential building in circumstances constituting the commission of a criminal offence, under s 144 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO). The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the enactment of s 144 of LASPO, and the commission of an offence under it, did not have any material effect on the operation on the law of adverse possession. 

Contempt of court – Committal. The first defendant was at the material times a spokesman for the unincorporated association known as The Coalition of Badger Action Groups (CBAG), which formed a part of the movement to stop the culling of badgers. The claimants were farmers and other interested parties that had been given permission to do a pilot cull of badgers. An injunction was granted and the claimants claimed that the defendants had breached the terms and that the first defendant should be committed for contempt of court. The Queen's Bench Division held that the breaches had been proved to the required standard. 

Value added tax – Zero-rating. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (the tribunal) allowed the taxpayer company's appeal against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)(FTT) in which the FTT had decided that although 'static caravans' sold by the taxpayer were zero-rated, verandas sold by the taxpayer along with those caravans were not zero-rated. The tribunal decided that there was nothing in Group 9 of Sch 8 to the Value Added Tax Act 1994 to exclude a veranda from the scope of zero-rating by reason of being part of a single supply of which the principal supply was a caravan. 

Passing off – Clothes. The defendant retailer, Topshop, had sold a t-shirt with an image of the pop star Rihanna. The t-shirt was not officially endorsed by her and while the photograph had been licensed to Topshop by the photographer, it had been taken during a video shoot for the star's new album. Rihanna successfully issued proceedings for passing off. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed Topshop's appeal as the judge had not made any error in his identification of the relevant law or his application of it to the present case. 

Counsel – Disciplinary proceedings. The appellant barrister had been disbarred for serious misconduct by the Bar Disciplinary Tribunal (the tribunal). The appellant appealed to the Visitors to the Inns of Court (the visitors), on the ground that there had been unfairness by the respondent Bar Standards Board in having failed to disclose a statement of the principal witness against him. The appeal was dismissed. In judicial review proceedings, the judge declined to quash the visitors' decision. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the appeal, held that there had been a real possibility that the tribunal would have come to a different conclusion had disclosure been made. 

Competition – Competition Appeal Tribunal. The Competition Appeal Tribunal dismissed the applications brought by Groupe Eurotunnel SA (Eurotunnel) and Societe Cooperative de Production Sea France SA under s 120 of the Enterprise Act 2002 for judicial review of a decision of the Competition and Markets Authority in relation to the completed acquisition by Eurotunnel of certain assets from the liquidator of SeaFrance SA. 

Legal aid – Entitlement. The claimant issued judicial review proceedings, contending that the defendant Lord Chancellor had exceeded his powers, under the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, when making reg 33 of the Civil Legal Aid (Procedure) Regulations 2012, SI 2012/3098. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the application, held that reg 33 of the Regulations was not ultra vires, as the Lord Chancellor had a wide power, which was not limited to procedural matters. Further, reg 33 of the Regulations had not thwarted or frustrated the Act's purpose, but was consistent with it by ensuring that the domestic violence exception had been strictly confined to its intended scope and not exploited. 

Company – Shares. The claimants brought proceedings in the British Virgin Islands (BVI) against the second defendant for breach of a contract to procure the issue of shares in the first defendant company to them and against the company for rectification of its share register to show the claimants as shareholders. The BVI court refused the claimants permission to serve the second defendant out of the jurisdiction on the basis that there was no real issue between the claimants on their rectification claim since they were not shareholders in the company. The Court of Appeal allowed the claimants' appeal. The Privy Council, in allowing the defendants' appeal, held that proceedings for rectification could only be brought where a claimant had a right to registration by virtue of a valid transfer of legal title, and not merely a prospective claim against the company dependant on the conversion of an equitable right to a legal title by an order for specific performance of a contract. 

Sentence – Imprisonment. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that a sentence of four years' imprisonment for an offence contrary to s 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 had been unduly lenient, in circumstances where there had been a sustained attack and the victim had been left with double vision. The sentence was substituted for one of seven years and four months' imprisonment. 

European Union – Jurisdiction. The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that art 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001 should be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of an allegation of infringement of copyright and rights related to copyright guaranteed by the member state of the court seised, that court had jurisdiction, on the basis of the place where the damage had occurred, to hear an action for damages in respect of an infringement of those rights resulting from the placing of protected photographs online on a website accessible in its territorial jurisdiction. That court had jurisdiction only to rule on the damage caused in the member state within which the court was situated.