William Byfield's Secret E-Diary

European Union – Equal treatment in employment. European Union law, in particular the principle of primacy of EU law, should be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which a national body established by law in order to ensure enforcement of EU law in a particular area lacked jurisdiction to decide to disapply a rule of national law that was contrary to EU law. The Court of Justice of the European Union so held in proceedings concerning the jurisdiction of the Workplace Relations Commission (Ireland) to decide to disapply provisions of national law that were contrary to EU law.

Capital gains tax – Exemptions and reliefs. The taxpayer's residence in the property did not have sufficient 'quality' for the property to qualify as an 'only or main residence' for the purposes of principal private residence (PPR) relief pursuant to s 222 of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992. Accordingly, the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) dismissed the taxpayer's appeal against the Revenue and Customs Commissioners' decision not to grant him PPR and lettings relief.

Divorce – Financial provision. On the basis that the financial arrangements embodied in an Egyptian divorce agreement were not the subject of a formal order in the Egyptian divorce proceedings, the future security of the parties' child, A (and that of the applicant wife as his primary carer) required an order for financial relief to be made under the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984, Pt 3. The Family Division so ruled, and, among other things, ordered that the wife's occupation of a flat in London, that was part owned by the first respondent husband, be extended until A was 18 years old, or until he had completed his secondary education.

Bankruptcy – Trustee in bankruptcy. The appellant bankrupt unsuccessfully appealed against the dismissal of his application under r 18.35 of the Insolvency Rules (England and Wales) 2016, SI 2016/1024, which allowed a bankrupt, with the permission of the court, to make an application on the grounds that the remuneration or expenses charged by a trustee were excessive. The liabilities of the bankrupt's estate were relatively modest, around £16,622 in total. However, the total amount required to discharged the liabilities, including the trustee's costs, among others, was around £285,089. The Chancery Division ruled that the deputy district judge of the county court had not erred in considering that the question to be asked on the application was whether the appellant could show that the trustee's costs could be reduced below the net realisation figure of £98,000, and in concluding that that was not likely. The deputy district judge had not erred in exercising his discretion by dismissing the application for permission. In so ruling, the court considered the relevant test for granting permission under r 18.35.

Immunity – State immunity. The appellant company's appeal failed. The Privy Council held that certain shares were not immune from any process of enforcement under the State Immunity Act 1978 as extended to Jersey by the State Immunity (Jersey) Order, 1985 (the SIA 1978). The application of s 13(2)(b) of the Act turned on the straightforward question of whether the property against which enforcement was sought was property of a state. In the present case, all that was relied on was mere control, which was not property in that sense.