Latest Cases

Criminal law – Conspiracy. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, considered an application by the Attorney General in respect of H, who had been convicted of three counts of conspiracy to defraud and one count of retaining a wrongful credit, and S, who had been convicted of two counts of conspiracy to defraud, and held their sentences had been unduly lenient given the extent and circumstances of the offending in what had been a profound misuse of the professional training of both men. Both men were legal professionals and had fraudulently obtained mortgages. H's sentence was varied to a concurrent term of six years and three months' imprisonment in respect of counts 1, 2 and 2 and a concurrent term of nine months' imprisonment in respect of count 4. S's sentences were ordered to run consecutively, with an overall term of three years' imprisonment. 

European Union – Value added tax. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of arts 138(1) and 139(1), second sub-paragraph, of Council Directive (EC) 2006/112 (on the common system of value added tax), as amended. The request had been made in proceedings between Traum EOOD (Traum) and the Director of the Varna 'Appeals and practice in the field of tax and social security' directorate at the central office of the public revenue agency regarding a tax adjustment notice refusing to grant Traum an exemption from VAT in respect of a transaction which it had categorised as an 'intra-Community supply of goods'. 

Patent – Practice. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, considered an appeal against a decision to grant summary judgment in favour of the defendant in proceedings for patent infringement. The court rejected the claimant's contention that the judge had wrongly granted summary judgment without the benefit of hearing expert evidence which would throw light upon the issues of construction and infringement. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. In proceedings between the mother and father, the Family Division made certain findings of fact. The children had been taken to England from Pakistan in both 2011 and 2012 because that was what the father and his family decided should happen. The removals were unilateral and thus unlawful actions with grave and long lasting consequences for the children's relationship with their mother. The mother cared deeply for them and was entirely committed to their welfare. Nevertheless, the children would not be restored to the habitation of their mother. 

European Union – Freedom of movement. The Administrative Court held that the claimant had not established that the new regime under the Gambling (Licensing and Advertising) Act 2014 (the 2014 Act), which entailed a change from a system of regulation based upon place of supply to one based upon place of consumption, was unlawful under European or domestic law. It served a series of legitimate objectives and there was no proper basis for concluding that it would be discriminatory. Further, the claimant's passporting proposal would not meet the legitimate objectives, or prove effective or achievable. 

Costs – Order for costs. The claimants brought a single claim alleging that the defendant companies had infringed their patent. The court in earlier proceedings found in favour of the claimants. The claimants contended that they were entitled to a sum in excess of the sum capped for proceedings in the Intellectual Property and Enterprise Court and contended that CPR 63.17A had to be taken to mean that the cap of £500,000 applied separately to each defendant. The court held that the cap of £500,000 was absolute, unless the parties agreed otherwise and the court had no discretion to lift it. Accordingly, the cap applied to the claim against both defendants. 

Injunction – Interim injunction. The claimant son of a recording artist sought an injunction to stop publication of a semi-autobiographical book, written by his father. A judge dismissed the claim on various grounds. The claimant appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division dismissed the appeal on the questions whether the claimant had a cause of action for misuse of private information or negligence. However, it held that the claimant had sufficiently favourable prospects on the facts of the case of establishing at trial his claim that the publication by the defendants of the work in its present form would constitute intentional conduct causing him psychiatric harm to justify an injunction restraining publication of parts of the work pending trial. 

Company – Administration order. The Chancery Division, Companies Court, considered an application by the former joint administrators of Brilliant Independent Media Specialists Ltd (In Liquidation) (the company) for the court to fix their remuneration pursuant to r 2.106 and 2.108 of the Insolvency Rules 1986, SI 1986/1925. Taking into account the outcome of the administration and the benefit achieved the court held that £233,147.25 was a fair, reasonable and proportionate sum. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The claimant applied to have an ex parte order, withdrawing an accepted CPR Pt 3 offer set aside. The Queen's Bench Division held that the only new circumstances which could make it just to permit a party to withdraw its offer before the expiry of the relevant period were circumstances which the offeror was able and willing to make known to the offeree at the time of serving notice of withdrawal. 

European Union – Income tax. The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that art 63 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should be interpreted as precluding national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings which provided that the failure by a non-resident investment fund to comply with the obligations to communicate and publish certain information required by that legislation, which were applicable without distinction to resident and non-resident investment funds alike, resulting in the flat-rate taxation of the income which the taxpayer earned from that investment fund, since that legislation did not allow the taxpayer to provide evidence or information that could prove the actual size of that income.