Latest Cases

Financial services – Financial Services Authority (FSA). The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, upheld a determination of the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) that, upon a determination of the applicable Canadian law, the appellant Canadian company, although dissolved, had had an existence sufficient for the instant proceedings in which it was alleged that it had been involved in market abuse. 

European Union – Value added tax. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of arts 132(1)(m), 133(d) and 134(b) of Council Directive (EC) 2006/112 (on the common system of value added tax). The request had been made in proceedings between the United Kingdom Revenue and Customs Commissioners and Bridport and West Dorset Golf Club Ltd (Bridport) concerning the exemption from VAT of the green fee paid by players who were not members of that club in order to have access to Bridport's golf courses. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The defendant local authority granted the interested party planning permission for a steel framed livestock building, a temporary caravan and associated development. The claimants sought an order quashing the grant of planning permission. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, found one technical breach by the failure to explain the reasons for the decision, but found no prejudice as a result. All other grounds of challenge similarly failed. 

Town and Country planning – Planning permission. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimant companies' application for judicial review of the defendant local authority's decision to grant planning permission to the first interested party developer for a retail park. The authority's decision had not been irrational. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. Following final care and placement orders being made in respect of a young boy, the mother appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that, in a number of respects and in the circumstances, there had been no error in the judge's case management of the proceedings nor in his determination that the threshold criteria for making the orders had been met. 

Practice – Striking out. The claimant's first claim, relating to a claim of negligence in the treatment of injuries that he had suffered whilst in the Army, was struck out following a number of delays. The claimant subsequently issued a second claim. That claim was also struck out, on the application of the defendant Ministry of Justice. The claimant appealed against that decision. The Queen's Bench Division held that the striking out of the second claim would be dismissed, and the claim would be allowed to proceed. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Family Division made a placement order in respect of a child, ES, aged three, in circumstances where the local authority had previously established its claim of illicit contact between the mother and ES's father. The court held that, in the circumstances, a placement order leading to eventual adoption was the most appropriate solution to meet ES's welfare needs. 

Sentencing – Calculation of sentence – Curfew condition. High Court of Justiciary: Refusing appeals against sentence by two appellants who argued that credit should have been given for periods during which they were subject to curfew orders, the court held that in an appropriate case a court of first instance might justifiably regard the existence of a prolonged restrictive curfew having particular effects on a person as a mitigatory factor to which it could have regard in selecting the appropriate sentence, but the circumstances would have to be exceptional and in these two cases there was nothing of an exceptional nature. 

Employment – Contract of service. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (the EAT) allowed the employer's appeal and struck out all the employees' claims for breach of contract in relation to a Living Away From Home Allowance. The EAT held that the tribunal judge had been bound by the case of Qantas Cabin Crew (UK) Ltd v Lopez and anor[2013]All ER (D) 32 (Mar)which he had declined to follow. 

Practice – Service out of jurisdiction. The claimant and defendants had entered into a collaboration agreement. The claimant was dissatisfied with another company that they were in a joint venture with and terminated the collaboration agreement. He issued a quantum meruit restitutionary claim against the defendants and was granted permission to serve out of the jurisdiction. The defendants successfully applied to have that order set aside. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the claimant did not have a realistic prospect of success and dismissed his appeal.