Latest Cases

Animal – Protection. The claimant Royal Society for the Protection of Birds challenged the Secretary of State's decisions directing Natural England to consent to the culling of certain birds. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the Secretary of State had been plainly entitled to conclude that the integrity of the site would not be affected by the cull. 

Building contract – Construction of building contract. The claimant brought proceedings against the defendant contractor for damages for defects and alleged overpayment in respect of work carried out on her country house. In the course of proceedings, the Technology and Construction Court gave a preliminary ruling on the true construction of a clause in a building contract, which provided for any defects to be rectified in a stated rectification period. The court held that an 'appropriate deduction' meant a deduction which was reasonable in all the circumstances and could be calculated by reference to one or more factors. 

Trust and trustee – Removal of trustee. A dispute arose regarding a trust deed that had been created in respect of property held by a Sikh Gurdwara. The dispute concerned the appointment and removal of trustees and whether the recognised religious head was, in fact, the successor to that role. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, had permanently stayed proceedings on the ground that the dispute raised a non-justiciable issue regarding religious doctrine and practice. The Supreme Court remitted the matter to trial at the High Court. The issues regarding the trust deed could only be determined at a full trial. Further, it was established law that the court could consider religious issues where there were civil law consequences. 

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. 

European Union – Freedom of movement. The claimant companies issued judicial review proceedings, challenging the defendant Secretary of State's refusal to treat as medicinal products the large number of glucosamine-containing products (GCP) described as food supplements. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the claimants had failed to establish that the defendant had erred in refusing to treat all GCPs, alternatively, all GCPs marketed with a daily recommended dose of 1500mg, as medicinal products. 

Immigration – Asylum/humanitarian protection – Leave to appeal. Court of Session: Refusing an application by a Zimbabwean applicant seeking leave to appeal against a decision of the Upper Tribunal (UT) dismissing her appeal against the First Tier Tribunal (FTT)'s rejection of her claim for asylum/humanitarian protection, the court held that the proposed grounds of appeal―that a country guidance case had been superseded by a report placed before the FTT and that both tribunals had failed to apply the correct test for internal relocation―did not give rise to any important point of principle or practice, and there was no other compelling reason for the court to hear the appeal. 

Shipping – Cargo. The charterers chartered a large, oil-carrying vessel from the owners. They made requests to the owners to be allowed to transfer crude oil from the vessel into another, similar vessel. The owners refused all their requests. The charterers brought proceedings, submitting that the owners had acted unreasonably in refusing their requests. At first instance, the judge found for the charterers. The Court of Appeal, in dismissing the owners' appeal, held that the judge at first instance had been entitled to make the conclusions that he had done. 

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. 

Value added tax – Repayment of. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (the tribunal) allowed the appeal by the Revenue and Customs Commissioners against the refusal by the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (the FTT) to strike out the taxpayer's appeal against the Revenue's rejection of the taxpayer's direct claim from the Revenue for repayment of VAT erroneously charged on an exempt supply. The tribunal decided that the FTT had no jurisdiction to entertain that appeal on the basis that pursuant to s 80 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994, a claim for repayment might only be made by the person who had accounted for and paid to the Revenue the tax then being reclaimed, which in the present case had been the taxpayer's supplier. 

Immigration – Deportation. The claimant Jamaican national had an extensive criminal history of serious offending in the United Kingdom. He sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision to certify his case, under s 96 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, in the context of her principal decision to refuse to revoke the claimant's deportation order. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the Secretary of State had been entitled to take the approach she had to the issue of certification, even in the light of allegedly substantial developments or changes in the law.