Latest Cases

Criminal law – Appeal. The defendant was convicted of rape of a 15 year old girl. The Criminal Cases Review Commission referred the case to the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, relying fresh medical evidence which criticised the evidence of the prosecution's expert at trial that the complainant's injury was diagnostic of penetrative sex. The court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the fresh evidence, whilst capable of belief, did not render the conviction unsafe. 

Capital gains tax – Disposal of assets. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) allowed the appeal by the Revenue and Customs Commissioners against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) which had upheld the taxpayer's argument that he had been entitled to elect to claim Enterprise Investment Scheme (EIS) relief on that part of the gain accruing on the disposal of a mixed-use asset referable to its non-business use, and so enabling him to take advantage of the more generous taper relief then available in respect of gains occurring on the disposal of business assets. 

Income tax – Earnings from employment. The taxpayer banks (UBS and Deutsche Bank) had set up schemes to pay employees' bonuses in such a way that they could avoid paying income tax and national insurance contributions. The schemes involved 'restricted securities' and so took advantage of the tax exemption benefits of Ch 2 of Pt 7 of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003. The Revenue and Customs Commissioners determined that income tax and national insurance had been payable. The First-tier Tribunal (Tax) dismissed the banks' appeals. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) allowed UBS's appeal and upheld the scheme, while DB's appeal was dismissed as having failed to meet the requirements of s 429 of the Act. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, found that both schemes had fallen within the regime under Ch 2 of the Act so had been eligible for the corresponding tax benefits. 

Financial services – Financial Conduct Authority. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (the tribunal) dismissed the reference made by the applicant against a decision of the Financial Conduct Authority (the FCA) to impose a financial penalty of £80,000 on him in respect of breaches of Principle 1 of the Statements of Principle and Code of Practice for Approved Persons. The tribunal decided that the applicant had behaved dishonestly in respect of the Principle 1 breaches and that in those circumstances, the financial penalty of £80,000 imposed on him had been appropriate. 

Contract – Construction. The claim concerned notice provisions of an International Swaps and Derivatives Master Agreement 1992 and whether a bank had validly exercised its contractual right to extend the term of a five-year interest rate collar transaction by giving notice to the defendant company. The Chancery Division held that the purported notice sent by the bank by email was not a valid and effective notice and did not operate to extend the term of the collar. 

Employment – Contract of service. The employment tribunal (the tribunal) had allowed the employer's counterclaim against the employee for breach of implied contractual terms of good faith, trust and confidence. In allowing the employee's appeal against that decision, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the tribunal had applied the wrong test by failing to decide for itself whether the employee had actually done what had been alleged, and further, on the evidence, there had not been a breach of contract by the employee, as alleged. 

Extradition – Extradition hearing. The respondent judicial authority sought the appellant Romanian national's extradition pursuant to a European arrest warrant. The district judge ordered the appellant's extradition and the appellant appealed. Allowing the appeal, the Administrative Court held that in the instant case the warrant had been invalid by reason of inadequacy of particulars of conduct, pursuant to s 2(4)(c) of the Extradition Act 2003. The appellant had been entitled to known in the context of which the case against him had been framed in the warrant which offences were said to have been committed by him and how many offences he would fact at trial. 

Disclosure and inspection of documents – Privilege. The claimant applied for the destruction of certain documents claiming confidentiality and privilege. The defendant maintained that privilege had been waived. The Queen's Bench Division held that there was no foundation in fact for the defendants' argument about waiver. Given the highly confidential nature of the privileged document, there was no arguable basis for contending that there had been a waiver by the claimant of his privilege in the material. 

European Union – Environment. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of arts 9 and 11 of Council Directive (EEC) 92/43 (on the conversation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora). The request had been made in proceedings between Cascina Tre Pini Ss (Cascina) and the Ministry of the Environment and the Protection of the Land and the Sea and others concerning the procedure for review of the status of site of Community importance of a site including a plot of land of which Cascina was the owner. 

Town and country planning – Inquiry. The inspector appointed by the defendant Secretary of State dismissed the claimant's appeal against the refusal of outline planning permission. The judge quashed that decision, as the claimant had not had a reasonable opportunity of addressing character/appearance and sustainability issues, which had turned out to be determinative. The Secretary of State appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the appeal, held that issues of character/appearance and sustainability had clearly been live, and the claimant had had an opportunity to make any submission which it had wished on those matters.