Latest Cases

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. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Queen's Bench Division acceded to the first defendant's application for strike out of certain paragraphs of the claimant law firm's particulars of claim on the basis that the claimant had no title to sue on insurance contracts made between the claimant's clients and the insurers. In so deciding, the claims brought against the third and fourth defendants also came to an end. 

Criminal law – Appeal. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division substantially refused the defendant's application for leave to appeal against his two convictions for doing acts tending and intended to pervert the course of public justice, contrary to common law. However, the court had been unable to determine whether leave should be granted on one ground of appeal, thus, that ground would be adjourned with directions, for a further hearing. 

Sentence – Suspended sentence. In the circumstances, the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division held that total sentences of 6 months' imprisonment, suspended for 12 months, for religiously aggravated intentional harassment and assault by beating, had not been unduly lenient. The recorder had exercised his discretion to suspend the sentences in a way that he was entitled to have done. 

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. 

Guarantee – Bank guarantee. The Technology and Construction Court considered the claimant oil company's application for summary judgment against the defendant bank (Barclays) on a claim for payment under the guarantee. The guarantee had been issued as security for a company's performance of its obligations to the claimant under a contract for work on an oil field. The court ruled that it was not a pre-requisite to the validity of the claimant's demand that the claimant had to make a statement that no amendment had been made to the contract impacting the timely performance of the works under the contract. Such a declaration was irrelevant to Barclays' obligation under the guarantee. 

Arbitration – Award. The Commercial Court held, among other things, that, on the evidence, the claimant had been an investor, within the meaning of a bilateral agreement between Venezuela and Canada and therefore entitled to arbitrate a claim against Venezuela concerning mining concessions and mining rights. Consequently, Venezuela had lost its right to rely on state immunity in proceedings brought by the claimant to enforce an award of the arbitral tribunal in Paris. Further, s 12(1) of the State Immunity Act 1978 did not require the service of the arbitration claim form on Venezuela in the manner contended. 

Contract – Breach. The Queen's Bench Division held in relation to or monies due and unpaid in respect of the sale of five consignments of rice as evidenced by the invoices held that the claimant was entitled to be paid but reduced by the amount due by various credits in the defendant's favour. 

Building – Contract. The Technology and Construction Court, on the claimant developer's CPR Pt 8 claim for declaratory relief, held that the defendant building contractor had had no contractual right to have made or be paid in respect of an application for a further interim payment (or any subsequent application thereafter), in circumstances where the application had been made after the period covered by an agreed schedule governing the making of interim applications and payments. 

Constitutional law – Separation of powers. The Privy Council held that the retrospective repeal of a statutory limitation period for criminal prosecutions in Trinidad and Tobago had been constitutionally valid, in particular, it had not breached the principle of the separation of powers, the rule of law or due process. Further, there had been no abuse of process in the appellants' continued prosecution, and the Director of Public Prosecutions had not been in breach of the duties of impartiality and objectivity by the continued prosecution of the appellants.