Latest Cases

Police – Pension. The claimants' appeal to the defendant Crown Court, pursuant to reg H5(1) of the Police Pensions Regulations 1987, SI 1987/257, contending that the Regulations which disentitled the second claimant to a widow's pension because the first claimant had married her after he had retired should be disapplied, should not have been brought before the Crown Court. Accordingly, the Divisional Court transferred it to a single judge of the Queen's Bench Division, to be treated as if it was a claim commenced under CPR Pt 8.

Housing – Local authority houses. There was no evidence whatsoever that the defendant local authority had pre-determined that it would not offer the claimant housing by reason of her race or religion, and the decision letter clearly set out all the evidence presented to it, and set out clearly and rationally the basis for the decision in accordance with the allocation scheme. Accordingly, the Administrative Court held that there was no justifiable complaint about the decision-making process and the claimant's judicial review failed.

Criminal law – Indictment. The defendant's conviction for fraudulently removing property in anticipation of the winding-up of a company was unsafe, as it was a conviction of an offence which had not been, and could not be, proved by the evidence upon which the prosecution had relied. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in allowing the defendant's appeal and quashing the conviction, further held that it did not have power to substitute a conviction for a different offence, as the charge of doing something within 12 months had not involved an allegation of doing something before that period had begun.

Conflict of Laws – Service outside jurisdiction. The claimant had been entitled to serve a claim form on the defendant out of the jurisdiction on the basis that England was the defendant's last known domicile. The Queen's Bench Division so ruled, among other things, concerning a dispute over assets between the unmarried parties, which arose following the breakdown of their relationship. The court held that it was not appropriate to extend Re Egerton's Will Trusts[1956] 2 All ER 817 (which held that there was a starting presumption that the law of the husband's domicile applied to govern the mutual property rights of the spouses) to non-matrimonial relationships.

European Union – Corporation tax. For the purposes of the assessment of the finality of the losses of a non-resident subsidiary, within the meaning in Marks & Spencer plc v Halsey (Inspector of Taxes): C-446/03[2006] STC 237, the fact that the subsidiary's member state of establishment did not allow the losses of one company to be transferred, in the event of a merger, to another company liable for corporation tax, whereas such a transfer was provided for by the member state in which the parent company was established in the event of a merger between resident companies, was not decisive, unless the parent company demonstrated that it was impossible for it to deduct those losses by ensuring, in particular by means of a sale, that they were fiscally taken into account by a third party for future tax periods. The Court of Justice of the European Union so held, among other things, in a preliminary ruling in proceedings concerning the possibility of the taxpayer company deducting from its corporation tax the losses of a sub-subsidiary established in another member state.

Income tax – Corporation tax. The concept of final losses of a non-resident subsidiary, within the meaning set out in Marks & Spencer plc v Halsey (Inspector of Taxes): C-446/03 [2006] STC 237 (M&S), did not apply to a sub-subsidiary unless all the intermediate companies between the parent company applying for group relief and the sub-subsidiary sustaining losses that could be regarded as final were not established in the same member state. The Court of Justice of the European Union so held, among other things, in a preliminary ruling in proceedings concerning the possibility of the respondent taxpayer company of deducting from its corporation tax the losses of a sub-subsidiary established in another member state.

European Union – Environment. Articles 13(1) and 23(1) of Directive (EC) 2008/50 should be interpreted as meaning that, in order to establish whether a limit value with an averaging period of one calendar year, as laid down in Annex XI to that directive, had been exceeded, it was sufficient that a pollution level higher than that value be measured at a single sampling point. The Court of Justice of the European Union so held, among other things, in a preliminary ruling in proceedings regarding the obligation to develop an air quality plan for the Brussels zone (Belgium) and to install the sampling points legally required to monitor air quality.

Trust and trustee – Constructive trust. The appellants' appeal in a property dispute was dismissed, save that the order of the judge at first instance would be varied to include a declaration as to the respondent (D) being a constructive trustee of the 3/8 share in the property. The Chancery Division held that, among other things, the fact that D had admitted to forging a will of the deceased did not lead to the conclusion that the court should deny to her a declaration that she had the benefit of the express declaration of trust contained in the purchase agreement of the property.

Landlord and tenant – Lease. A local authority freeholder with which a rowing club had purportedly entered a lease agreement had an unanswerable case to be joined as a defendant. The Chancery Division further granted the claimant members of the rowing club an order appointing them as trustees of the lease as it had been the intention of all the parties that the club had been a tenant, although it had not legally been entitled to be such.

European Union – Environment. Article 1(3)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 should be interpreted as meaning that shipments of animal by-products falling within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002, were excluded from the scope of Regulation 1013/2006, unless Regulation 1069/2009 expressly provided for the application of Regulation 1013/2006. The Court of Justice of the European Union so held in a preliminary ruling in proceedings concerning the legality of a transfer of animal by-products from the Netherlands to Germany.