Latest Cases

Value added tax – Input tax. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (the tribunal) dismissed the appeal by Edgeskill Ltd (Edgeskill) against a decision of the First-tier tribunal (Tax Chamber) (the FTT) in which the FTT had upheld the decision by the Revenue and Customs Commissioners to refuse Edgeskill recovery of input VAT relating to several transactions for the purchase and export by Edgeskill of mobile telephones. The tribunal decided that, on the evidence, the FTT had correctly concluded that Edgeskill had had actual knowledge that the transactions in question had all been connected with fraudulent tax evasion. 

Mortgage – Debt. The Chancery Division considered the interpretation of s 77A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, which required creditors to provide debtors with statements in relation to regulated fixed-sum credit agreements. The court held that, where a creditor had provided the debtor with a non-compliant statement, the period of non-compliance commenced on a date to be calculated as if no statement had been served at all, and the period of non-compliance began on the day following the last day on which a compliant statement could have been given. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. In a personal injury claim, the claimant applied for permission to serve the defendant in Canada. The defendant issued an application notice asking for an order that the English court had no jurisdiction to try the claim and alternatively that it should not do so. The master accepted that submission and the claimant appealed. Applying para 3.1 of Practice Direction 6B (CPR 6.37(1)(a)), the Queen's Bench Division held that the court had jurisdiction and permission was granted. 

European Union – Freedom of movement. The defendant had refused retrospective payment of the claimant's medical treatment in Germany. The claimant sought judicial review. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the delay in making the decision had been justified and that the urgency of the treatment was a material factor. Further, the defendant had not applied the criterion of urgency in place of undue delay, but had considered each as an independent basis to justify funding. 

Nuisance – Statutory nuisance. The instant proceedings arose out of the service of an abatement notice (the notice) by the interested party local authority on the claimant Royal British Legion Club. The claimant appealed against the notice and the matter was dealt with at a trial before the defendant Magistrates' Court in front of a district judge. The judge found that the notice had been justified and reasonable and the claimant had not used the best practical means to counteract the nuisance (the first disputed decision). However, he ordered that each side should pay its own costs (the second disputed decision). Dismissing the claimant's claim for judicial review of the first and second disputed decisions, the Administrative Court held that: (i) the instant case had been an exceptional case where, despite the fact that the claimant had been the winning party, it should be able to bring judicial review proceedings; however, (ii) the district judge's findings had not been irrational, perverse or unreasonable. 

European Union – Freedom of establishment. The Supreme Court ruled on matters arising from proceedings concerning the right of Marks and Spencer plc (M&S) to claim group relief in respect of losses sustained by two of their subsidiaries resident in Germany and Belgium respectively. 

Evidence – Foreign tribunal. Dutch authorities requested assistance for the seizure of certain documentary evidence for use in criminal proceedings against the claimant. The claimant sought judicial review of the judge's decision to permit retention of seized material. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the judge's approach to the precondition of substantial relevance could not be criticised. It was not open to the claimant to seek to re-argue the challenge to the judge's power to transmit the material, as he had had two prior opportunities and the judge had been perfectly entitled to be satisfied that digital material had been of substantial relevance to the Dutch proceedings for continuity reasons. 

Contract – Construction. The claimant sold a solicitor's practice to the first defendant. The practice was conducted through the second defendant, an LLP. The claimant was the sole member of the LLP. A dispute arose and the claimant brought a claim against the first defendant for money owed and the first defendant counterclaimed. The Mercantile Court held that subject to interest, and apportionment between the defendants. The net amount of exactly £45,000 was due to the claimant 

Adoption – Practice. The parents sought permission to appeal against a direction that they not be notified of the details of the final adoption hearing concerning their children. The local authority conceded that the judge had erred in the direction. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in granting limited permission to appeal and allowing the appeal on that issue, held that the judge's direction that the parents could not attend the final adoption hearing had been wrong in law and had constituted a procedural irregularity. 

Insurance – Claim. The claimant brought proceedings against the defendant insurance company when it refused to pay on an insurance policy, following a burglary at a property that he owned. The Technology and Construction Court held that, on the evidence, the property had not been occupied at the time of the burglary, and that the claim had been fraudulent.