Latest Cases

Sale of land – Trust. The Chancery Division dismissed the claimant property developer's claim that the defendant, Lidl UK Gmbh, had purchased a property as part of a joint enterprise with the claimant and that Lidl held the property on trust for both parties. On the facts, there had been no arrangement or understanding, sufficient to give rise to a Pallant v Morgan equity. Accordingly the property was not being held on trust for the claimant as well as Lidl, as joint venturers. No agreement had been made and no assurances had been given by Lidl to the claimant to the effect that the claimant would definitely acquire an interest in the property if Lidl purchased it. 

Proceeds of crime – Practice. The Administrative Court dismissed the applicants' application to set aside a property freezing order (PFO) and a disclosure order (DO) made against them, pursuant to ss 245A and 357 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. There had been no need to provide further information to the judge, and nothing unsettled the judge's conclusions that good arguable grounds for the grant of a PFO and reasonable grounds to suspect that property was recoverable or associated for the DO had been established. 

Criminal evidence and procedure – Evidence of child witnesses – Disclosure/ inspection. High Court of Justiciary: Refusing an appeal by the Crown against a judge's decision, at a preliminary hearing, ordering disclosure by delivering copies of disc recordings of police and social work Joint Investigative Interviews (JIIs) of the complainers to the agents for the respondents, who faced charges of sexual abuse involving two younger boys, the court held that recordings of the JIIs were label productions in the case and at this stage the accused was entitled to see the labels, not as a result of the disclosure regime but in terms of the statute relative to the lists of productions: given that the labels were to be used as evidence in chief it was difficult to conceive of a situation in which the court would refuse an application to borrow them for a specified purpose (including copying), albeit perhaps subject to conditions, and the court had effectively granted that application 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed an appeal against a decision to grant the appellant leave to remain in the United Kingdom for 30 months with a condition that there be no recourse to public funds (NRPF). The appellant's application had been correctly assessed by reference to the transitional provisions and a grant of leave to remain under the Immigration Rules, rather than discretionary leave, had been correct on the facts. There had been no infringement of s 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 so far as the appellant's child had been concerned. The imposition of the NRPF condition had not been irrational or unfair. 

Practice – Civil litigation. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the claimant's appeal against the district judge's allocation of his claim, within the Pre-action Protocol for Low Value Personal Injury Claims in Road Traffic Accidents, from CPR Pt 8 to Pt 7 in circumstances where the personal injury claim had been settled but damages for car hire charges remained at issue. The district judge had erred in that further evidence had not been necessary. Further, the case had not fallen within para 7.2 of CPR PD 8B and the district judge had had no power under that paragraph to re-allocate the claim. 

European Union – Employment. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that, the general principle prohibiting discrimination on grounds of age, as given concrete expression by Council Directive (EC) 2000/78 should be interpreted as precluding, including in disputes between private persons, national legislation, such as that at issue in the proceedings before the referring court, which deprived an employee of entitlement to a severance allowance where the employee had been entitled to claim an old-age pension from the employer under a pension scheme which the employee had joined before reaching the age of 50, regardless of whether the employee chose to remain on the employment market or take his retirement. 

Immigration – Education. In an 'unreported decision', the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) allowed appeals against the respondent Secretary of State's decisions cancelling the appellants' leave to remain in the United Kingdom on the ground that they secured an English language qualification by fraud. There was no hesitation in accepting evidence of the appellants' expert in voice recognition, which constituted an unremitting critique of the Secretary of State's evidence. 

European Union – Customs and excise. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1047/2001 and Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95. The request had been made in proceedings between Mr M. Cervati, in his capacity as general partner and legal representative of Società Malvi Sas di Cervati Malvino, a partnership having ceased to trade (Malvi), and the partnership itself and the Italian Customs Authority), concerning a correction and recovery notice notified to Malvi in relation to imports of garlic of Argentinian origin subject to a preferential rate of customs duty. 

European Union – Free movement of capital. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed, in part, an appeal by the Revenue and Customs Commissioners against two judgments regarding the tax treatment of dividends paid to United Kingdom companies on shares in foreign companies. The court upheld the judge's finding that European law required a tax credit for the higher of tax actually paid and the foreign nominal rate of tax of the dividend paying company capped at the UK corporation tax rate. The appeal succeeded regarding the pro rata arrangements for advance corporation tax payments. 

Costs – Order for costs. In allowing the appellant's appeal, the Court of Appeal confirmed that the appellant's unsuccessful claim brought against the Motor Insurers' Bureau for personal injuries was subject to the provisions under CPR 44, namely, the Qualified One-Way Costs Shifting regime. Accordingly, the judge in the substantive hearing had erred when he enforced a costs order against the appellant.