Latest Cases

Immigration – Expulsion – Judicial review – Competency Court of Session: Refusing as incompetent a judicial review petition challenging decisions that the petitioner was liable to be removed from the UK and to issue directions for his removal, the court held that there existed an alternative statutory remedy by which the question sought to be raised in the proceedings could have been decided, the petitioner had not availed himself of the statutory procedure, and there were no special or exceptional circumstances. 

Personal Injury: Quantum Case. Sport/Leisure/Holiday. The claimant was awarded £1,700 in general damages. He suffered from gastroenteritis, including stomach cramps, diarrhoea, vomiting, headaches, nausea and sweats, during and following a stay at a hotel booked through the defendant. The claimant's symptoms resolved after two-and-a-half weeks. 

Value added tax – Exemptions. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) in allowing the Revenue and Customs Commissioners' appeal, held that the conclusion of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) that, 'Spot the Ball' was a 'game of chance' for the purposes of Sch 5 to the Finance Act 1972, had not been one that was open to it on a proper understanding of the law. 

European Union – Reference to European Court. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling, in which it held that, on a proper construction of art 107(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, for the purposes of determining whether or not the guarantees provided by a public undertaking were imputable to the public authority controlling that undertaking, the following were relevant, together with the body of evidence arising from the circumstances of the case in the main proceedings and from the context in which they had taken place: on the one hand, that the sole director of the company providing those guarantees acted improperly, deliberately kept the provision of those guarantees secret and disregarded the undertaking's statues and, on the other, that that public authority would have opposed the provision of the guarantees, had it been informed of it. 

Parent and child – Child protection. Sheriff Court: In applications by the Principal Reporter for determinations that a 'Schedule 1 offence' had been committed in respect of a child CN, and that her twin sister KN was, or was likely to become, a member of the same household, the court held that the statutory offence of wilful neglect and the common law offences of cruel and unnatural treatment of persons and reckless conduct causing actual injury had been committed in respect of CN, but that the ground in respect of KN had not been established. 

European Union – Workers. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of art 41(1) of the Additional Protocol, concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Community by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2760/72 and annexed to the Association Agreement, and art 13 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council of 19 September 1980 on the development of the association. The request had been made in proceedings between the applicant and the respondent concerning a fine imposed on the applicant for having had works carried out by nationals of non-member states without those workers having been issued with a work permit. 

European Union – Regulations. The applicant Central Bank of Iran sought the annulment of Council Regulation (EU) 267/2012, listing it as a body subject to restrictive measures introduced in order to apply pressure to Iran to end its proliferation-sensitive nuclear activities and the development of nuclear weapon delivery systems. The General Court of the European Union, in allowing the application, held that the Council's statement of reasons for that act was insufficient, as it did not enable either the applicant or the Court to understand the circumstances which had led the Council to consider that the relevant criterion had been satisfied in the case of the applicant and, accordingly, to adopt the contested act. 

European Union – Income tax. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of arts 63 TFEU and 65 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The request had been made in proceedings between Mr Verest and Ms Gerards and the Belgium concerning the tax treatment, in Belgium, of immovable property situated in France. 

European Union – Companies. The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that art 3(1) of Directive (EC) 2003/71 of the European Parliament and of the Council (on the prospectus to be published when securities are offered to the public or admitted to trading), as amended, should be interpreted as meaning that the obligation to publish a prospectus prior to any offer of securities to the public was not applicable to an enforced sale of securities, such as that at issue in the main proceedings. 

Employment tribunal – Jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division considered the factors material to whether an employment tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain an unfair dismissal claim brought by a former employee who was engaged to work abroad. In allowing the employer's appeal, the court held that the authorities made it clear that the general rule was that someone in the employee's position was, upon dismissal, excluded from any right to claim under s 94(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. If he wished to show that, exceptionally, his case was not caught by that general rule, but that he was within the territorial jurisdiction of s 94(1), he had to be able to show that his employment relationship had a sufficiently strong connection with Great Britain and British employment law such that it could be presumed that Parliament had to have intended that s 94(1) should apply to him.