Latest Cases

Practice – Summary judgment. The proceedings related to advice given by the defendant companies to the claimant company during the course of the purchase and renovation of a hotel. In the course of proceedings, the defendants applied to strike out the claim. The Technology and Construction Court, in dismissing the application, held that it could not be satisfied, on the evidence, that it was an appropriate claim to strike out at the present stage. 

European Union – Value added tax. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art 16 of Sixth Council Directive (EEC) 77/388 (on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment), as amended by Council Directive (EC) 2006/18, and arts 154 and 157 of Council Directive (EC) 2006/112 (on the common system of value added tax). The request had been made in proceedings between Equoland Soc. coop. arl (Equoland) and the Livorno Customs Agency (Italy) involving a decision of the latter requiring Equoland to pay VAT on the importation of goods not physically placed in a tax warehouse, even though Equoland had already paid that tax under the reverse charge mechanism. 

Contract – Construction of contract. The claimant applied for a declaration as to the meaning of a provision concerning reinvestment criteria, as defined in a collective management agreement (CMA), which governed a collateralised loan obligation structure (the CLO). The first defendant had, under the CLO, raised €602m through the issues of 14 classes of notes. An issue arose as to whether money, representing unscheduled principal proceeds, was available for reinvestment, in circumstances where the notes had been downgraded by a ratings group in 2010 and, subsequently upgraded in 2012. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, reversed the Chancellor of the High Court's decision and held that the disputed provision did not have the effect of giving a historic downgrade in the notes a level of pre-dominance within the structure of the scheme that would prevent future reinvestment. 

Aerodrome – Aerodrome open for public use. The claimant, the operator of Redhill Aerodrome, which was located on the metropolitan Green Belt, applied for planning permission to replace grass runways with a hard runway. The second and third defendant local authorities refused the application and the inspector, appointed by the first defendant Secretary of State, refused the claimant's appeal. The claimant sought judicial review of the decision. The Administrative Court, in allowing the appeal, held that the inspector had erred in adopting an impermissible approach to the National Planning Policy Framework. 

Criminal law – Harassment. The claimant, Halcyon, was operated by B out of a premised used by L. The business of Halcyon was, essentially, to be run by B, to provide her with a job and an income, but with her mother and her brother having a financial interest in the business. In 2010, B incorporated another company and some of Halcyon's customers transferred their business to Mint. B ceased to hold any issued shares in Halcyon, her shares being transferred to her mother. There were two actions before the court, in the first action, Halcyon brought an action contending that Mint had acquired the business of former clients of Halcyon by misuse of confidential information of Halcyon; in breach of implied terms of the contracts of employment of B and M, the second defendant. In a second action, B, as claimant contended that various steps had been taken to manoeuvre her out of Halcyon which amounted to harassment. The Queen's Bench Division, considering the law on fiduciary duties and harassment dismissed both claims. 

Jurisdiction – Challenge to jurisdiction. The claimant credit rating company brought claims, including the 'alternative declaration claim' in the English court against the defendants, who were said to be investors in financial instruments which had been issued by the defendant bank (the bank). The fifth defendant bank, which was domiciled in The Netherlands, sought a declaration that the English court lacked jurisdiction to hear the claims against it and sought an order setting aside service out of the jurisdiction. The Commercial Court, dismissing the applications, held that there was a lis between the bank and the claimant on the alternative declaration claim. 

European Union – Value added tax. The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that point (c) of the third sub-paragraph of art 17(5) of Sixth Council Directive (EEC) 77/388 should be interpreted as not precluding a member state, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, from requiring a bank, which carried out leasing activities, amongst other things, to include in the numerator and denominator of the fraction used to determine a single deductible proportion for all of its mixed use goods and services just the part of the rental payments made by customers as part of their leasing agreements that corresponded to interest, where that use of the goods and services was primarily caused by the financing and management of those contracts, that being a matter for the national court to ascertain. 

Immigration – Rules. The appellant foreign nationals had all been refused leave to remain in the United Kingdom and the Secretary of State had determined that their removal would be proportionate. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed all of their appeals and gave guidance on the obligations of the Secretary of State under para 353B (exceptional circumstances) of the Immigration Rules. 

Power of attorney – Lasting power of attorney. VH was born in 1926 and lived in her own home. In 2010, she appointed her son DH to be her sole executor of her will and executed an Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) in which she appointed DH to be her sole attorney. Following the taking out of a mortgage transaction in VH's name, an investigation was opened in the LPA. The Court of Protection held that following criteria under the Mental Capacity Act 2005, VH lacked the capacity to revoke the LPA and DH had behaved in a way that had both contravened his very limited authority to make gifts under s 12 of the Act and had not been in VH's best interests. 

Minor – Removal outside jurisdiction. The father had taken his child to Singapore, with the mother's consent, to live with the paternal grandparents for a short period. The father then refused to return the child to the United Kingdom and the mother issued proceedings. Three orders were made which required the father to return, or secure the return, of the child. By the third order, the judge refused to recuse herself, found the father guilty of contempt, and committed him to a term of imprisonment. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the father's appeal to the extent that the recital to the second order should not have been included, the judge had not properly explained herself in refusing to recuse and should have directed the committal application to be heard by another judge and, finally, the judge's reasoning had not provided adequate support for her finding of contempt, accordingly, the father would be released from custody.