Latest Cases

Value added tax – Repayment of input tax – Refusal of leave to appeal. Court of Session: Dismissing a judicial review petition in which the petitioners sought reduction of the Upper Tribunal (UT)'s decision refusing permission to appeal against the First Tier Tribunal (FTT)'s dismissal of their appeal against HMRC's refusal to make a repayment of input tax on the basis that the petitioners knew or ought to have known that the relevant transactions were connected with fraudulent evasion of VAT, the court held that the UT was well entitled to conclude as it did and it could not be said that the petitioners raised any important point of principle or practice or that there existed some compelling reason justifying review of the UT's decision. 

Employment – Continuity. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, applying established principles, decided that 'the client' in the present case had not been the same client for the purpose of demonstrating a service provision change. Therefore, the decision of the employment tribunal would be quashed and replaced by a finding that there had been no relevant transfer for the purpose of reg 3(1)(b) of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006, SI 2006/246. Further, while the tribunal had erred in looking at the activities rather than the task in considering whether the employment had been in connection with a single specific event or task of short-term duration, it was not open to the EAT to substitute its view in answering that question. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Family Division, in considering three cases with overlapping issues, found that there might be circumstances in which the court could properly direct that the cost of certain activities should be borne by the Courts Service. It would be an order of last resort. No order of that sort should be made except by or having first consulted a High Court judge or a designated family judge. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. Following the Supreme Court decision in Surrey County Council v P and others[2014] All ER (D) 185 (Mar), a concern arose following the judgment around the practical and procedural implications for the Court of Protection of what had been agreed would be the large increase in its case-load of, deprivation of liberty (DoL) cases which would follow in consequence of the Supreme Court's decision. In order to address the increase, the Court of Protection devised a standardised, and so far as possible 'streamlined', process, compatible with all the requirements of art 5 of the European Convention of Human Rights. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The parties divorced in Bulgaria and the wife applied pursuant to s 13 of the Matrimonial and Family Proceeding Act 1984, for leave to apply for financial relief pursuant to Pt III of that Act after an overseas divorce between the parties. The Family Division held that leave would be granted and that rr 14 and 15 of Family Court (Composition and Distribution of Business) Rules 2014, SI 840/14 read together with the definition of 'the court' in the Act meant that at the point of granting leave the court, acting judicially, might make a decision as to where the substantial application should be issued and as to the allocation of the future substantive proceedings. 

Sentence – Drug offence. Ten defendants appealed against their sentences for their involvement in drug offences and peripheral criminal activity ranging between two and 15 years' imprisonment. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, allowed the appeal of all but one defendant, as the judge's articulated sentencing exercised had either been flawed or notably inconsistent between some defendants. Accordingly, the sentences would be reduced to between 18 months, and nine years and six months. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. EU was formally diagnosed as having dementia when he was hospitalised in August 2012. EU's sons had objected to an application by Suffolk County Council (the authority) to be appointed as his deputy for property and financial affairs. Having regard to all the circumstances, the Court of Protection was satisfied that it was in EU's best interests to appoint the authority to be his deputy for property and affairs and to dismiss his sons' objections. The factor of magnetic importance was EU's own wishes and preference that he would like the authority to manage his property and financial affairs. 

Prison – Prisoner. Ten British prisoners issued proceedings against the United Kingdom, complaining that they had been prevented from voting in European Parliament elections in violation of art 3 of the First Protocol to the Convention (A3P1). The European Court of Human Rights held that there had been a violation of A3P1. However, it refused damages, as the finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants. 

Practice – Civil litigation. The President of the Family Division, in the course of care proceedings, reaffirmed that parties were expressly prohibited by FPR 4.5(3) from agreeing alterations to timetables set by the court. Any amendment had to have the prior approval of the court. 

Damages – Quantum – Loss of society. Court of Session: In an action by the family of a man who died, aged 69, of mesothelioma caused by exposure to asbestos in the course of his employment, the court made awards of £35,000 to each of his five adult children.