Latest Cases

Judicial Review – Leave to apply for judicial review. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, on two appeals where the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) had certified applications for permission to seek judicial review as being 'totally without merit', issued guidance on the proper approach to be taken in considering whether to certify an application for permission to apply for judicial review as totally without merit. 

Criminal law – Trial. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division held that an order which imposed reporting restrictions in a trial for terrorism offences would not be lifted after the conclusion of the trial. The nature of the evidence, heard in private, continued to necessitate a departure from the principle of open justice. 

Contempt of court – Committal. The Queen's Bench Division held that the defendants would be sentenced for contempt of court for 28 days for breach of an injunction that prohibited anyone from participating in car cruising in a defined area, such sentence to be suspended. 

Company – Member. The Companies Court ruled that the trustees in the bankruptcy of the first respondent's husband were entitled to present a petition to wind up a company in which he had shares because they were to be regarded as 'a member' of the company, for the purposes of s 74 of the Insolvency Act 1986 and, therefore, as registered within the company's register of members for the relevant period. On the balance of probability, the trustees had established unfair prejudice and grounds for winding up the company, subject to financial issues yet to be determined. 

Building contract – Breach of contract. The Technology and Construction Court made rulings regarding liability in a dispute concerning the construction and sale of a residential property owned by the defendant. It held that, among other things, the first claimant owner of the second claimant building company was entitled to recover damages for breach of contract and to reflect his entitlement to share in the benefit obtained by the defendant in occupying and renting out the property. The defendant was entitled to recover damages to reflect his loss over the period of culpable delay by F in completing the property. 

Prison – Prisoner. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the claimant's appeal concerning the lawfulness of the guidance given by the defendant Parole Board to its panels in December 2013 as to the test to be applied by panels of the Board when considering whether to direct the release after recall to custody of a prisoner serving a determinate sentence of imprisonment. Among other things, it held that the guidance correctly stated that ss 255B(3) and 255C(3) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, as amended, did not require or permit the risk of offending to be balanced against the benefits of release to the prisoner and the community. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Family Court allowed the mother's application to relocate with her child back to Poland to live with the family on the basis that the state of the mother's mental health meant that it was in the child's best interest for the mother to have the support of her family in Poland. 

Health and safety at work – Duty to employees. The Supreme Court, in allowing an appeal on a claim regarding an accident while at work, gave guidance on the proper approach to the admission and use of expert evidence in proceedings in Scotland and updated the position regarding an employer's liability at common law and the inferences that could be drawn where there had been a failure to provide personal protective equipment which would have been used had it been provided. 

Value added tax – Input tax. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (the tribunal) dismissed the appeal by the taxpayer company against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) dismissing the taxpayer's claim for recovery of input tax on the basis that the supplies it had made to its subsidiaries had not been supplied for a consideration and were therefore not taxable supplies within the meaning of s 5 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 and art 2(1) of Directive (EC) 2006/112. 

European Union – Commercial policy. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling concerning the validity and interpretation of: (i) Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006; (ii) of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1294/2009, following an expiry review pursuant to art 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96; and (iii) art 236 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92. The requests had been made in two sets of proceedings, brought by C & J Clark International Ltd (Clarks) against the United Kingdom Revenue and Customs Commissioners and by Puma SE (Puma) against the Principal Customs Office, Nuremberg, relating to the anti-dumping duty paid by Clarks and Puma, pursuant to the regulations in dispute, when importing footwear with uppers of leather into the European Union.