Latest Cases

Summary judgment – Detention. The defendants had raised sufficient of an evidential case in open to have a real prospect of success in respect of claims alleging the unlawful detention of the claimants. The Queen's Bench Division so ruled concerning an application for summary judgmen made by certain claimants, who were alleged to have been members or associates of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, and who had been detained, pending deportation to Libya on national security grounds. The court ruled, among other things, that there was no binding Court of Appeal, Civil Division, authority which impeded the correct application of R (on the application of Lumba) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; R (on the application of Mighty) v same[2011] 4 All ER 1[2012] 1 AC 245.

Income tax – Loss relief. Applying a purposive construction to s 30(9) of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992, properly interpolated into s 30(1) of that Act, it was necessary to enquire, where a scheme involved more than one acquisition, by which acquisition the scheme purported to achieve its aim of creating an increase (or decrease) in the value of the asset. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) held that, understood that way, in the present appeal, the aim of the scheme had been to create an increase in value of the shares via the disposal to an unconnected company at par and the acquisition from that company at a greatly increased price. Accordingly, the tribunal dismissed the taxpayer's appeal against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) to uphold the rejection by the Revenue and Customs Commissioners of the relief claimed in relation to a capital loss the taxpayer claimed to have suffered as a result of a scheme he had entered into. The tribunal also dismissed HMRC's cross-appeal in relation to a loan waiver issue.

Charity – Charitable purposes. The claimant charity trustee's application for declarations in relation to the sale of certain land by the defendant local authority failed. The Chancery Division held, among other things, that the authority had not acted in breach of trust by selling the land in circumstances where the Charity Commission had confirmed to the authority, prior to the sale, that the sale of that land would not amount to a breach of trust on the part of the authority.

Competition – Charges. In deciding an appeal from a preliminary issue, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, agreed with the trial judge and dismissed the claimants' appeal. It held that the wording of art 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union made clear that an agreement or decision would only be prohibited and thus automatically void if there had been a determination to that effect by an entity with the power to make such a determination. Under the transitional regime, that was only a national competition authority under art 104 or the European Commission under art 105.

Immigration – Asylum. The First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) had made material errors in finding inconsistencies in the evidence about the appellant Sri Lankan's employment and his ability to pass through the airport as indicating that he had been of low risk. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the appellant's appeal, further held that there was a basic minimum of detail which was lacking in the case and the tribunal had erred in its assessment that the appellant had been at minimal or no risk.

Extradition – Private and family life. The judge had not been wrong to find that the balance had come down in favour of giving effect to the extradition arrangements. Accordingly, the Administrative Court dismissed the appellant's appeal against orders for his extradition to Poland to serve the remaining four years, three months and three days of an aggregate sentence for attempted robbery and fraud.

Company – Member. The petitioners and the first respondent were siblings and all shareholders in the second respondent company. Although there had been unfairly prejudicial conduct on the part of the first respondent to the interests of the petitioners, the petitioners' longstanding acquiescence to that conduct precluded relief. Accordingly, the Chancery Division dismissed the petitioners' petition seeking an order for the purchase of the petitioners' shares by the first respondent.

Arbitration – Agreement. The claimant's challenge to the finding of an arbitrator that she had jurisdiction failed. The Chancery Division held that, although the claimant had retired from his position as a member of two partnerships, the word 'member' in the phrase 'rights, duties and liabilities of any member' in the agreement that bound his employment had included someone who had been a member when the events had occurred.

Damages – Breach of contract/ professional negligence – Ex turpi causa non oritur actio. Court of Session: Dismissing an action for breach of contract and professional negligence in which the pursuer sought to recover from his accountant his loss of earnings resulting from a sanction imposed on him by the Financial Services Authority, withdrawing his authority to perform certain functions, the court upheld the defender's plea that the pursuer was precluded from recovering damages from him by reason of public policy, concluding that the brocard ex turpi causa non oritur actio applied to the case.

Criminal evidence – Sexual offences – Corroboration. High Court of Justiciary: Allowing a Crown appeal in a case in which the respondent was convicted of the offence of coercing another into being present during sexual activity by masturbating in view of his next door neighbour on several occasions between 16 October and 16 November of 2017, only the final incident being spoken to by more than one witness, the court held that the Sheriff Appeal Court had erred in determining that there was insufficient evidence to corroborate the libel in its entirety and that the principle of mutual corroboration could not be applied to proof of three of the four incidents the complainer witnessed: the doctrine of mutual corroboration could apply where the individual offences said to constitute a single course of criminal conduct persisted in by the offender were all committed against the same complainer and where the only separate source of evidence relied on for corroboration was evidence not from another complainer but simply from an independent witness to one of the offences; the Moorov doctrine could be used to corroborate evidence from the complainer about a number of incidents where those incidents were not charged separately but were included within one single 'composite' charge.