Latest Cases

Shipping – Charterparty. The claimant company, AOM, chartered a vessel to the defendant company, Golar. AOM subsequently commenced proceedings, claiming, among other things, that Golar had shipped a cargo injurious to the vessel, in breach of the charterparty. The Commercial Court held that, on the evidence, Golar had not shipped an injurious cargo, and hence the claim would be dismissed. 

Criminal evidence – Witness. The claimant sought exceptional public funding to be represented by counsel at the hearing of a summons requiring disclosure of her counselling records in rape proceedings against her husband. The defendant Director of Legal Aid Casework's refused funding and the claimant challenged his decisions by way of judicial review. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that the defendant had illegitimately relied on the presence of the counselling service and had failed to consider the relevance of the notes in any detail or the issue of admissibility at all. 

Value added tax – Supply of goods or services. The taxpayer entered into a particular type of motor vehicle finance agreement, which might lead to customers acquiring a vehicle. The Revenue and Customs Commissioners (the Revenue) issued assessments to VAT on the basis that the agreement constituted a supply of goods and the First-tier Tribunal (Tax) (the FTT) dismissed the taxpayer's appeal. The taxpayer appealed. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber), in allowing the appeal, held that the FTT had made an error of law in its interpretation of art 14(2)(b) of Council Directive (EC) 2006/112. Further, the agreement could not be characterised as a contract for the sale of a vehicle. 

Inheritance tax – Exemptions and relief. The claimant was the administratrix of the estate of HB and the executrix of EB. EB was the beneficiary of HB's will. EB left gifts to four charities, and the claimant sought to effect a deed of variation so that Inheritance Tax would not be paid on the gifts. The Chancery Division held that, on the proper interpretation of the relevant criteria, the deed would be made. 

Sex discrimination – Employment. The employee had been regularly working from home under an arrangement with her employer for seven years, after which the team manager had changed the arrangement. In dismissing the employer's appeal against the tribunal's finding of unlawful discrimination on grounds of sex pursuant to ss 1(2)(a) and 6(2)(b) of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the 'something more' could be an explanation proffered by the employer that was rejected by the tribunal. Accordingly, the reverse burden of proof had not been discharged by the employer. 

Immigration – Education. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision to refuse its application for highly trusted sponsor status on the basis of its refusal rate. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that the Secretary of State's refusals had been based on an erroneous understanding of the meaning of the relevant guidelines. Further, the Secretary of State had not paid undue regard to the claimant's past record of failure to report students, but had paid insufficient regard to the current capacity and performance of the claimant in reporting unenrolled students who had been refused entry to the United Kingdom. 

Easement – Right of way. The Chancery Division held that rights of way over land, as claimed by the claimants, had not been granted to them expressly, pursuant to s 62 of the Law of Property Act 1925, nor by any process of implication. 

Pension – Pension scheme. The Chancery Division held that, on the true construction of reg 2(1)(d) of the Entry Rules Regulations, SI 2005/590, the words 'for the purposes of securing that the assets of the scheme were sufficient to meet its liabilities' applied to guarantees as well as other arrangements. Accordingly, a Forensic Science Service pension scheme was an 'eligible scheme' within the meaning of s 126 of the Pensions Act 2004. 

Medical practitioner – Disciplinary panel. The appellant nurse appealed against the decision of the respondent Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC)'s Conduct and Competence Committee (the panel) by which it ordered that he be struck off. Dismissing the appeal, the Administrative Court held that the panel had been entitled to take into account certain hearsay evidence, it had been entirely open to the panel to come to the decisions it had done in respect of each of the allegations it had found proved, there had been no culpable delay on the part of the NMC, and the sanction had not been disproportionate in the circumstances. 

Terrorism – Prevention of. The claimants had both been suspected of terrorism related activity. The Secretary of State had successfully applied for permission to make control orders in respect of both men. They had subsequently been subjected to control orders and terrorism prevention and investigation measures. The claimants' applications for statutory reviews of the control orders and TPIMs were dismissed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, found that there had been flaws in the handling of their allegations of abuse of process. That issue would be remitted for reconsideration and redetermination on the submission of abuse of process. Further, the control orders were quashed on the ground of material non-disclosure.