Latest Cases

Income tax – Loss relief. The Revenue and Customs Commissioners rejected the taxpayers' claims to set off trading losses in respect of certain partnerships so as to reduce their payments in respect of tax due, as the partnerships had entered into a settlement agreement. The taxpayers sought judicial review. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber), in dismissing the application, held that as a result of the restatement of the partnership losses under the settlement agreement, the taxpayers had lost the right to carry back to earlier years the higher pre-amendment losses which had been claimed. 

Pension – Pension scheme. The employment tribunal (the tribunal) had ruled that a survivor's pension scheme that had excluded partners registered in a civil partnership from benefits derived from service prior to the Civil Partnership Act 2004 was incompatible with Directive (EC) 2000/78. In allowing the employer's appeal, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the tribunal had erred in holding the provisions of para 18 of Sch 9 to the Equality Act 2010 was incompatible with the Directive. The Directive did not purport to have retrospective effect such that inequalities in pay arising on the basis of sexual orientation prior to the date it was to have been transposed could form the basis of a claim after transposition though they could not have done before in the context of the employer's occupational pension scheme. 

Police – Disclosure of information. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police's decisions to include on and not to remove from an enhanced criminal records certificate certain information concerning his sexual comments. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that the inclusion of the matters represented a disproportionate interference with the claimant's rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Company – Creditors voluntary liquidation. The claimant creditors of a company in creditors' voluntary liquidation issued proceedings against the former liquidator, R, of the company alleging fraud and seeking relief under s 212 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the s 212 proceedings). Shortly before the trial of that application, R made an interim application, among other things, seeking an order adjourning the trial. The Chancery Division, in dismissing the application, held that an unheralded very late application of the instant nature did not fit into the very narrow gap through which trivial non-compliance might be allowed to pass. R did not qualify as an applicant to challenge the validity of the claimants' proofs. It followed that the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain a challenge by it to a consent order made in the s 212 proceedings. 

Contract – Construction. In the course of litigation concerning the funding of the 'gherkin' premises in London, the Commercial Court considered the interpretation of cl 9.7 of the facility agreement between the parties. The court held that, on the true construction of the agreement, the claimants' interpretation was to be preferred. 

Practice – Stay of proceedings. The proceedings concerned a dispute concerning work carried out in Pakistan. In the course of the dispute, proceedings were issued in Pakistan by the defendants, but stayed by the Pakistani court. The claimant company commenced proceedings in England and obtained judgment in default against the defendants. The defendants applied to have, among other things, an order allowing the claimant to serve proceedings out of the jurisdiction and judgment in default set aside. The Commercial Court held that the challenge to jurisdiction would fail, but the judgment would be set aside to allow the claim to be defended on limited grounds. 

European Union – Taxation. The United Kingdom applied to annul Council Decision (EU) 2013/52 authorising enhanced co-operation in the area of financial transaction tax. The Court of Justice of the European Union dismissed the action as the contested decision had not been contrary to either art 327 or 332 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. 

Divorce – Practice. The court was hearing applications by the Queen's Proctor to dismiss a large number of divorce petitions and also, in many of the cases, to set aside decrees of divorce (some nisi, some absolute) obtained in consequence of a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice on an almost industrial scale. An important question arose in relation to the possible impact on the reporting of the proceedings of the Judicial Proceedings (Regulation of Reports) Act 1926 (the 1926 Act). The Family Court held that publication by the media of a report of the proceedings had not, given the nature of the proceedings, engaged the mischief at which the 1926 Act had been directed. 

Human rights – Right to respect for private and family life. A had been convicted of sexual offences and the Secretary of State sought to deport him. A challenged the deportation decision. One of his grounds of opposition was that he would be subject to violence in his country of origin if his crimes were known. An order was made, without notice to the media and without the ability for them to make representations, under s 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 that A could not be identified. The BBC sought to have that order set aside. The application was dismissed. The BBC appealed. The Supreme Court held that it had, in the circumstances, been necessary and lawful to have departed from the principles of open justice. Further, the order had not been incompatible with the rights of the BBC under art 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and the procedure that had been followed had satisfied the BBC's entitlement to an effective remedy. 

Sentence – Murder. The defendant was convicted of murder of her 11 month old son and sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 14 years. The Attorney General brought a reference, pursuant to s 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, on the basis that the proper balancing of the relevant factors should have led to an increase above the 15 year starting point indicated by Sch 21 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division held that the aggravating features of the case considerably outweighed the available mitigation so that the sentence passed by the judge had been unduly lenient and substituted a minimum term of 17 years.