Latest Cases

Value added tax – Zero-rating. The taxpayer was a franchisee in the 'Subway' chain of sandwich shops. It sold toasted sandwiches and a hot sandwich that contained cooked meatballs in sauce. The Revenue and Customs Commissioners determined that those products would be assessed as chargeable to VAT at the standard rate rather than zero rated. The taxpayer's appeals to the tribunals failed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, also dismissed the appeal. Section 30 and Sch 8 Pt II of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 were to be construed as providing for an objective test to determine the intention behind the supply of hot food; the previous subjective test was incorrect and a failure to properly implement or apply European law in practice. 

Mental health – Court of Protection. The local authority came before the court seeking to be appointed as the deputy of a 91 year old, GW, for his property and affairs. GW's niece, who had been managing his finances objected. The Court of Protection allowed the authority's application as it was in GW's best interests. 

Minor – Removal outside jurisdiction. ACH was five. She and her mother lived in the United Kingdom. The father lived in America. Following unsuccessful proceedings in the UK, he had obtained orders from the Texan court that would allow him to obtain a passport for ACH without the mother's permission. The mother sought an order stating that, were the father to enter the UK, his passport and any passport for ACH could be seized. The Family Court held that, in the circumstances, it was appropriate to make the order sought. 

Medical practitioner – Negligence. The claimant issued proceedings for injuries and losses sustained as a result of the defendant general practitioner's failure to diagnose her with bacterial meningitis. The Queen's Bench Division, in allowing the claim, held that a reasonably competent general practitioner would have diagnosed or had a high suspicion that the claimant had been suffering bacterial meningitis and would have treated her with both penicillin and urgent referral to hospital. Accordingly, the claimant succeeded on the issues of liability in respect of both breach of duty and causation. 

Practice – Family proceedings. The local authority had in place a care plan in respect of the child, D. Thereafter, D remained at home for 18 months with his parents under the care plan. The local authority social worker became increasingly worried about aspects of his care and concluded that D should be removed from his parents' care to foster carers and gave notice to the parents to that effect. The father applied for an injunction under s 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998. The judge refused the injunction and the father applied for permission to appeal. The Family Division granted permission and allowed the appeal on the basis of established law. 

European Union – Regulations. The General Court of the European Union granted the application by the applicants for annulment of certain European Council decisions and Council Implementing Regulations (concerning restrictive measures against Iran) pursuant to which the applicants had been included in certain lists which had resulted in the freezing of their funds and economic resources and restrictions on their admission into the territories of the member states. 

Company – Administration. In the course of the administration of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (LBIE), the applicant, Contrarian, made an application to the administrators to be an unsecured creditor. The administrators made repeated request for more documentation, but Contrarian failed to provide the necessary information to support its claim. The administrators refused Contrarian any further time to prove that it was an unsecured creditor. Contrarian applied to the Companies Court for an extension of time. The court, in dismissing the application, held that the administrators had been generous to Contrarian in the extensions of time which they had agreed, and no further extension was appropriate. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant local authority appealed against the grant of planning permission to the second defendant to enable it to operate a supermarket. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the inspector appointed by the first defendant Secretary of State had reached a decision he had been entitled to make in the exercise of his planning judgment, on the material before him. He had not erred in assessing the noise levels, and although he had indicated deliveries would have less impact at noisier hours of the day and smaller lorries would be easier, he had not obliged the second defendant to do so. 

Conflict of laws – Contract. The Commercial Court held that, on its true construction, a clause in three commercial agreements did not require the parties to refer any dispute to arbitration in the sense required by the Arbitration Act 1996. It merely envisaged the parties attempting to refer the matter to arbitration by agreement between them and, where they failed to reach such agreement, the English courts had jurisdiction on a non-exclusive basis. 

European Union – Agreements distorting competition. The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that art 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should be interpreted as meaning that it precluded the interpretation and application of domestic legislation enacted by a member state which categorically excluded, for legal reasons, any civil liability of undertakings belonging to a cartel for loss resulting from the fact that an undertaking not party to the cartel, having regard to the practices of the cartel, set its prices higher than would otherwise have been expected under competitive conditions.