Latest Cases

Particulars of claim – Amendment. The claimants brought proceedings against the defendant chartered accountants and licensed insolvency practitioners alleging that they had negligently caused the claimants' financial loss as their trustees in bankruptcy. The Chancery Division ruled on the defendants' appeal and the claimants' cross-appeal following orders made by the deputy master in relation to the claimants' particulars of claim. 

Income tax – Emoluments from office or employment. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (the tribunal) ruled upon issues arising out of a decision by the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (the FTT) concerning a number of assessments for PAYE and national insurance contributions served on the taxpayers in respect of certain sub-trusts established in the name of individual employees of companies in the Murray group (the taxpayers). The tribunal dismissed the taxpayers' appeals, save in respect of certain termination payments, which would be remitted to the FTT for the purpose, amongst other things, of proceeding as accords in relation to those payments. 

Injunction – Interim injunction. The claimant was the freehold owner of a piece of empty land (the adjoining plot) immediately adjacent to a property in Holland Park, which was owned by the defendant management company. The defendant sought an interim injunction to prevent the claimant from applying for planning permission to build a house which she proposed to build on the adjoining plot. The Chancery Division, refusing the application, held that that difference in the risk of unquantifiable damage pointed firmly in favour of not granting the injunction, in particular, having regard to various undertakings which the claimant had offered. 

Insurance – Broker. The Commercial Court dismissed the claimant's claim for breach of contract and/or negligence against the defendant insurance brokers in circumstances where the claimant's business was found to be grossly under-insured following a fire. 

Misrepresentation – Deceit. The claimant brought a claim against the defendant, alleging that he had been induced into lending him money in respect of the purchase of a leasehold penthouse in London and into signing a declaration of trust in respect of it, in circumstances where the defendant had not disclosed that a bank had appointed receivers in connection with the property. The Chancery Division set aside the declaration of trust, ruling that the misrepresentations alleged had been proved. 

Land – Sale of land. The claimant brought proceedings, seeking an order for the sale of two properties, which were assets of an informal partnership with his brother, the defendant. The Chancery Division dismissed the claimant's application for a pre-emptive sale order. The court was not prepared to make the draconian pre-emptive sale order sought unless and until independent solicitors and estate agents had been appointed and some attempt had been made to assess the present market. 

European Union – Community aid. The Court of Justice of the European Union held that the first paragraph of art 33 of Regulation 2419/2001 had to be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of intentional irregularity found in an area aid application, the farmer was to be refused all of the aid to which that farmer would have been entitled under the aid scheme concerned by the application and for which the crop group concerned by that irregularity had been eligible. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant, from Pakistan, obtained entry clearance as Tier 4 (General) student until May 2012 to undertake a course, which was subject to the condition, pursuant to s 3(1) of the Immigration Act 1977, prohibiting him from studying at an institution other than the sponsor body. The claimant left the sponsor body and completed his education at another institution. He was subsequently accepted onto a further study course at another institution, to commence July 2012, and applied for further leave to remain. The defendant Secretary of State refused his application and the claimant sought judicial review of the decision. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the condition was valid and the claimant was plainly in breach of it. Further, the Secretary of State had not acted unfairly in refusing the application. 

European Union – Reference to European Court. The Court of Justice of the European Union considered a request for a preliminary ruling made in the course of proceedings between Mr U and the Stadt Karlsruhe concerning the latter's refusal to alter the form in which Mr U's birth name appeared in his German passport. The Court answered a number of questions relating to the interpretation of Council Regulation (EC) 2252/2004 (on standards for security features and biometrics in passports and travel documents). 

Costs – Employment tribunal. The employee's claims were struck out and the tribunal judge ordered that he should pay the whole of the employer's costs of the proceedings, to be assessed by the county court. The employee appealed, submitting that the judge had taken into account the substantial bill of costs incurred by the employer's in-house solicitor. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in dismissing the employee's appeal, held, inter alia, that a receiving party could claim costs where he was legally represented by a qualified employee and that the definition within rule 38(3) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2004 had not placed any artificial restriction on such a claim.