Latest Cases

Practice – Striking out. In the course of proceedings, the claimant obtained an expert report from D. D subsequently told the claimant that he was retiring and would not appear in the case. The claimant waited several months before informing the other parties of D's retirement, and sought to adduce a new expert report from Y. The deputy master allowed Y's report to be adduced. The defendant bank appealed, seeking for the claim to be struck out. The Chancery Division held that, while the appeal would not be allowed, the claimant would be required to rely on D's report, even though D might choose not to attend court. 

European Union – Value added tax. In considering whether the Finance (No 2) Act 2005 infringed the European Union principle of equal treatment, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division held that the introduction of an unjust enrichment defence with retroactive effect was compatible with EU law. The claimant's appeal concerning overpayment of VAT was dismissed, as the date of the claim was an essential characteristic in the context of the claim. Accordingly, a claim issued after the 2005 Act pertaining to periods before its introduction was not relevantly similar to a claim issued before the 2005 Act pertaining to the same period. 

Sentence – Appeal. The defendants, G (aged 42), F (aged 28) and R (aged 56) had pleaded guilty to one count of burglary of a bookmakers. They each received a sentenced of three years' imprisonment and subsequently appealed against that sentence, contending that it was manifestly excessive. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, allowed the appeal of F, who was the youngest of the three and had never been convicted of a burglary offence or served a term of imprisonment. F's sentence was reduced to two years' imprisonment. G and R's appeals were dismissed. 

Value added tax – Supply of goods and services. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) dismissed the taxpayer's appeal against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (the FTT) in which the FTT had decided that the taxpayer's construction of a new building in the grounds of his house had been an annexe to his existing cottage and therefore had not qualified as a construction of a building for the purposes of Item 2 of Group 5 of Sch 8 to the Value Added Tax Act 1994 and was consequently chargeable to VAT at the standard rate. 

Mental health – Persons who lack capacity. An application was made by the NHS Trust for a declaration that it would be lawful to withhold a blood transfusion from LM, a gravely ill 63-year-old female Jehovah's Witness. The Court of Protection held, considering the concept of capacity under the Mental Capacity Act 1983, that LM had the capacity to decide whether to accept or refuse a blood transfusion and that decision taken by LM prior to her loss of capacity was applicable to her later more serious condition. 

Natural justice – Magistrates. The claimant was convicted of an offence under s 112(1A) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 as she had not notified the interested party local authority of a material change in her circumstances sufficiently promptly. The claimant's appeal was dismissed by the defendant Crown Court. The Divisional Court allowed the claimant's claim for judicial review of the Crown Court's decision as the judge in the magistrates' court had adopted an unfair approach. 

Value added tax – Zero-rating. The First-tier Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) decided that the disposal by an Isle of Man Company, Rondini Ltd, of an interest in land in Lancashire to a charity was not zero-rated pursuant to Item 2 of Group 15 of Sch 9 to the Value Added Tax (Isle of Man) Act 1996. 

Criminal law – Appeal. The defendant had been convicted after trial of the murder of a 17 year old youth, who was stabbed 14 times in the back. The defendant sought to appeal against his conviction contending it was unsafe due to remarks made by counsel for his co-accused at the end of the trial and the directions the judge had given to the jury. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in dismissing the defendant's appeal dismissed each of his grounds and held, amongst other things, that there was such substantial evidence against the defendant that his conviction was safe. 

Contract – Offer and acceptance. The parties entered a distribution agreement in respect of the 'Virulite device' for the elimination of cold sores. The agreement was terminated by the defendant by notice. The claimant disputed the defendant's entitlement to terminate the agreement and claimed substantial damages. The defendant justified their termination on the grounds of a contractual variation. The Queen's Bench Division held that, applying established law, there had been a contractual variation and accordingly the defendant was not entitled to terminate the agreement on 31 January 2011. Its purported termination amounted to a repudiatory breach which the claimant had been entitled to accept. 

Sentence – Appeal. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in deciding appeals against sentences in a number of cases involving, amongst other things, sexual, violent and arson offences, provided guidance on the approach a court should take when considering whether to impose a sentence under the dangerous offenders provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 as amended by Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment Offenders Act 2003.