Latest Cases

Value added tax – Zero-rating. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) dismissed the appeal by Boxmoor Construction Ltd (Boxmoor) against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) that certain supplies by Boxmoor were not zero-rated supplies in the course of construction of a building designed as a dwelling within Item 2 of Group 5 of Sch 8 to the Value Added Tax Act 1994, but were chargeable to VAT at the standard rate. 

Practice – Parties. The Chancery Division allowed the claiming defendants' application for permission to join CL as a defendant to the counterclaim in a case concerning the alleged infringement of the claimants' copyright in the first defendant company's conduct of its therapy business. The counterclaim alleged that the claimants and CL had been negligent, both in their selection of a particular machine as a mandatory device for the administration of the therapy, and in their insistence on the continued use of the machine after problems allegedly became evident with it. The court held that CL had given direct advice to a number of the defendants, and that it could not be said that the claiming defendants had no real prospect of establishing their allegations against her. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Family Division considered the applicant local authority's application for an interim care order regarding LW, who had been born on 16 January 2016. The court criticised delays arising from the local authority's conduct and stressed the importance of making applications for public law proceedings in respect of new born babies timeously and especially, where the circumstances arguably required the removal of the child from its parent(s), within at most five days of the child's birth. 

Landlord and tenant – Repair. The Queen's Bench Division, in dismissing the claimant's appeal against the dismissal of her claim against the defendant for damages under s 4 of the Defective Premises Act 1972, held that the purpose of s 4(4) of the Act was not to create a strict liability, but to extend the application of s 4(1) of the Act to relevant defects which were outwith its scope and, therefore, to bring them within the scope of the section as a whole. Its purpose was not to confer an additional or alternative route to recovery where the claim under s 4(1) failed on its facts because s 4(2) was unsatisfied. 

Local government – Community charge. The Administrative Court allowed the claimant's challenge to the defendant community infrastructure levy (CIL) collecting authority's decision to issue liability and demand notices with respect to the grant of separate planning permissions for a mezzanine floor and external works. It accepted the claimant's argument that the mezzanine planning permission fell within the exemption created by reg 6(1)(c) of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010, SI 2010/948, and the external planning permission created no floor space and so was not liable to CIL. 

Tort – Fraud. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed the claimants claim for fraudulent misrepresentation regarding an investment made in the defendant's car hire company. On the fact the representations had not been made as alleged and in any event were not fraudulent. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed an appeal against the judge's refusal to make an order for security for costs. The judge had erred in finding that there was no reason to believe that the claimant would be unable to pay if it lost. If there was a practice of the Commercial Court that security for costs would often be granted against a foreign company who was not obliged to publish accounts, had no discernible assets and declined to reveal anything about its financial position, that practice was a sound one. The court gave guidance on the approach to be taken in such applications, in particular in CPR Pt 20 proceedings and where there was an agreed, and court approved, costs budget regarding costs already incurred. 

Company – Investment business. The Commercial Court allowed the claimant companies' claim for repayment of €1.3m, following the restructuring of two funds in a portfolio of assets into one. On the true construction of the termination agreement between the parties, the sum in issue was included in the amounts that the defendant company was bound to pay the first claimant. 

Water supply – Charges. The Chancery Division ruled on charges for water and sewerage services supplied to properties inhabited by the defendant local authority's tenants. The court ruled that, among other things, between 2000 and 2013, the defendant had charged the claimant more than the maximum charge allowed under the Water Resale Order 2006. 

Contract – Repudiation. The Companies Court ruled on consequential issues which arose following the main judgment on the claimant's petition alleging unfair prejudice in relation to the affairs of a limited liability company (LLP). Among other things, it considered whether its preliminary view had been wrong in respect of the validity of a third termination letter, giving the claimant notice requiring him to retire as a member of the management committee of the LLP. The court further ruled that the LLP should pay 50% of the claimant's costs, and that he should pay 60% of the LLP's costs in circumstances where the claim to be entitled to a share in the LLP had failed only at the last hurdle, but where the claimant had succeeded on all of the prior steps in the argument.