Latest Cases

Value added tax – Exemptions. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (the tribunal) allowed the appeal by the Revenue and Customs Commissioners against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) which had held that the taxpayer's business involved the making of supplies of a single service, the predominant element of which had been the provision of a licence to occupy a defined parcel of land, with the result that the supplies were exempt from VAT under Item 1 of Group 1 of Sch 9 to the Value Added Tax Act 1994. The tribunal decided that the correct classification of the single composite supply was the provision of storage facilities, which was subject to VAT. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. N was a woman in her early fifties who, following a brain haemorrhage was in a minimally conscious state and lacked capacity to make decisions as to her medical treatment. She resisted intervention particularly feeding through a tube and removed the tube at every opportunity. It was against this background that the National Health Service Trust applied to the court seeking an order from the court. The Court of Protection held that it was not in N's best interests to provide her with artificial nutrition. 

Sentence – Mandatory life sentence. The defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment, with a minimum period of 18 years, for murder. He applied for a reduction in the minimum term. The Queen's Bench Division, in allowing the application, held that the defendant had satisfied the relevant criteria as to his exceptional progress in prison. Accordingly, the minimum term was reduced to 16 and a half years. 

Parent and child – Contact. Court of Session: In an appeal by the mother of three children in foster care against a sheriff's decision confirming a children's hearing's refusal to increase the level of contact between her and the children, the court held that the sheriff did not err in refusing the appeal to her, and observed that the appeal to the Court of Session was entirely futile. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The respondent judicial authority sought the appellant's extradition to Germany to face prosecution for people trafficking. The appellant had a 12-year-old daughter who had disabilities. The district judge made an order for the appellant's extradition and the appellant appealed. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that extradition would not be a disproportionate interference with the appellant's or her daughter's rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Pension – Pension scheme. The claimant, a prison officer, was transferred out of the civil service into the private sector, under the Transfer of Employment (Protection of Undertakings) Regulations 2006, SI 2006/246 (TUPE). The pensions ombudsman rejected her complaint against the defendant cabinet office about the removal of her reserved right to an unreduced pension from age 55, following her transfer. The Chancery Division, allowing her appeal, held that the ombudsman's decision had erred in law in misconstruing the meaning of the term 'resignation' in r 1.13 of the Rules of the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme. The ordinary meaning of the word 'resignation' broadly covered a situation where someone had decided of their own accord to leave their employment, but did not apply where that person who was continuing to work full time in her former role, but who had been transferred under the terms of TUPE. 

Employment – Discrimination. Following the judgment of the Supreme Court in Seldon v Clarkson Wright & Jakes (see [2012] 3 All ER 1301), the case returned to the employment tribunal (the tribunal) for a decision as to whether the selection by the employer solicitors' firm of the compulsory age of 65 for retirement had been proportionate to achieve its aims of retention and workforce planning. The Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld the tribunal's decision that the choice of age 65 had been proportionate. 

Civil procedure – Summary decree. Court of Session: In an action to enforce an award of expenses made in judicial review proceedings brought by the defender's late mother, the court, granting summary decree, held that there was no defence to the action as the defence was dependent on a counterclaim that was incompetent, which failing irrelevant. 

Town and country planning – Development. The claimants, C and D, owned a farm, which D ran single-handedly at a loss. They wished to develop the farm's dwelling, which was built on condition that its occupation was permitted to persons employed in agriculture and their dependants. The inspector, appointed by the second defendant Secretary of State, refused the claimants' application for a lawful development certificate, as C and the children were not D's dependants. The claimants sought judicial review. The Planning Court, in dismissing the application, held that the term 'dependants' envisaged dependency in a wider way than one requiring financial dependency. 

Minor – Custody. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the father's appeal in respect of his application for the return of his children from Bangladesh. It held that, in considering a child's habitual residence, the court had to conduct a factual enquiry tailored to the circumstances of the individual case. Further, although there was jurisdiction to hear the application under art 10 of Council Regulation (EC) 2201/2003 (concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility) (Brussels II), the existence of jurisdiction and the exercise of it were two separate matters. On the facts of the instant case, the exercise of jurisdiction would result in the dismissal of the proceedings in any event.