Latest Cases

European Union – Transport. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 of the Council, as amended. The requests had been made in proceedings between CTP — Compagnia Trasporti Pubblici SpA (CTP) and: (i) the Campania Region; and (ii) the Province of Naples, concerning their refusal to grant CTP compensation in respect of financial burdens resulting from the provision of local public transport services. 

Judge – High Court. In the course of proceedings, it became clear that the deputy judge and the claimant's counsel in the instant case were working together as leading and junior counsel in another case. The defendant made an application for the deputy judge to recuse herself from the proceedings. The Chancery Division held that, in the circumstances, the application would be refused because no fair minded informed observer would think that there was a real possibility that the deputy judge would lean in the claimant's favour against the weight of the evidence. 

Freedom of information – Exempt information. The claimant journalist sought the disclosure of communications passing between the Prince of Wales and various government departments. The Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) (the UT) ordered the partial disclosure of the communications (the 2012 decision) and subsequently granted the journalist's requests for lists and schedules (the 2013 decision). The government departments appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the appeal, held that the 2012 decision had disposed of the claimant's claims in respect of lists and schedules, and the UT had been wrong in law to hold that it had had power to deal with that issue in the 2013 decision. 

Marriage – Validity. The Both parties married in both the Ukraine and the United Kingdom. The marriage ran into difficulties and the wife obtained a divorce in the Ukraine in respect of her marriage. The husband applied for a divorce in the English courts and the English court certified that the husband was entitled to a decree of divorce but stayed subject to the outcome of the wife's proceedings in the Ukraine. When the parties came before the court, the Family Division held that recognition of the default judgment of Ukrainian divorce would be refused. The marriage between these parties was accordingly still subsisting under English law. The stay on the husband's petition would be lifted and remitted to the County Court for decree nisi to be pronounced at the earliest opportunity. 

Income tax – Corporation tax. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) dismissed the taxpayer's appeal against a decision of the Revenue and Customs Commissioners to reject the joint election pursuant to s 171A of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 made by the taxpayer and another company within the same corporate group (GR) to deem the disposal of certain loan notes issued by a third party company to the taxpayer as having been made by GR rather than the taxpayer. 

Immigration – Removal. The claimant sought judicial review of the Secretary of State's decision to make directions for his administrative removal, in the exercise of her discretion under s 10(1)(a) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, and of her decision to remove him from the jurisdiction. Allowing the claim, the Administrative Court held that there had been no evidence that the Secretary of State had appreciated that she had been exercising a discretion, rather than taking action which had followed automatically from her belief that there had been a breach of the claimant's visa. 

Copyright – Infringement. The Intellectual Property Enterprise Court struck out a claim for infringement of copyright in its entirety where it would not be appropriate to use the court's resources when the maximum damages which the claimant could claim was around £83. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The judge refused to vary a freezing order against the defendant so as to permit him to repay a loan made by his daughter, E and granted the claimant companies a final third party debt order with respect to the defendant's accounts. The defendant appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the appeal, held that a proper exercise of the judicial discretion, to achieve an equitable outcome, required any third party debt order in the claimants' favour to be subject to a proviso, which required repayment of the debt owed to E prior to the order becoming final. 

Employment – Redundancy. The Employment Appeal, in allowing the employee's appeal in a claim for age discrimination, held that a local authority had not been required by an enactment to discriminate between the employee and younger dismissed employees in respect of redundancy pay. 

Income tax – Corporation tax. The Revenue had repaid overpaid VAT plus interest to the taxpayer, both of which amounted to significant sums. The Revenue then charged the payments to corporation tax. The taxpayer had unsuccessfully sought to challenge that decision. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the taxpayer's appeal as the VAT element of the repayment had been chargeable to corporation tax pursuant to s 103(1) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 and the interest had been chargeable as a 'qualifying loan relationship' within the meaning of s 100 of the Finance Act 1996.