Latest Cases

Value added tax – Supply of goods or services. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (the tribunal) allowed the appeal by the Revenue and Customs Commissioners against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (the FTT) that supplies of polycarbonate roof panels and radiation strips for conservatory roofs qualified for the reduced rate of VAT. The tribunal decided that the FTT had erred in its interpretation of Note 1(a) of Group 2 of Sch 7A to the Value Added Tax Act 1994. That error had been to construe 'insulation for roofs' as extending to the roof itself when it had energy-saving properties, rather than being confined to insulating materials attached or applied to a roof. 

Immigration – Leave to enter. The appeal concerned the amended Immigration Rules that required a UK spouse or partner to meet a minimum income requirement before their non-EEA partner would be permitted leave to enter the United Kingdom to join them. The Administrative Court had held that there was substantial merit in the contention that the amendments amounted to a disproportionate interference with the UK partners' rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, but did not grant declaratory relief. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the judge had erred in his analysis and had reached the wrong conclusion on compatibility. 

Contract – Consumer contract. The proceedings involved a contract made in the claimant's home that the claimant had purported to cancel. The defendant charged him a cancellation fee and refused to refund him a deposit. In finding for the claimant, the Supreme Court held that a failure by a trader to give written notice of the right to cancel did not deprive a consumer of the statutory right to cancel under the Cancellation of Contracts made in a Consumer's Home, or Place of Work etc Regulations 2008, SI 2008/1816. 

Shipping – Charterparty. A dispute arose about the alleged extending of a charterparty of a vessel. Considering anticipatory breach to have occurred, the owners sought to accept the breach and sold the vessel. By the time of the hearing, it was apparent that there was a significant difference in the value of the vessel when the owners sold it and November 2009, when the vessel would have been redelivered to owners had the charterers not been in breach of the charterparty. The Commercial Court held that the owners had not been required to give any credit for any benefit in realising the capital value of the vessel in October 2007, when the owners had arranged to sell it. 

Judgment – Default of defence. The parties had issued cross-petitions to grant relief against unfairly prejudicial conduct of a company's affairs. During the proceedings, various interim orders were made, the effect of which was, ultimately, that judgment was entered against HRH Prince Abdulaziz Bin Mishal Bin Abdulaziz Al Saud (the Prince) in respect of a counterclaim, and his application to stay the judgment pending the trial of the petitions was refused. The Prince appealed against all of the interim orders made. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing his appeals, held, among other things, that the Prince could not rely on a protocol in Saudi Arabia that members of the royal family were prevented from signing court documents to avoid compliance with an order that he provide a signed witness statement. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against the order for his extradition to the Czech Republic on the basis that it would be an abuse of process. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the extradition process had not been abused. There was nothing to suggest that the injustice to the appellant of having been tried, convicted and sentenced in his absence on the erroneous premise that he had been a fugitive from justice had been the result of anything other than incompetence on the part of the Czech authorities. There was no material which suggested that they had been motivated by bad faith. 

Employment – Continuity. The employment judge, in determining whether the first respondent had transferred from the second respondent to the appellant when there had been a service provision change from the former to the latter, found that there had been an organised grouping. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in allowing the appeal, held that the reasons had not disclosed that the judge had engaged with the appellant's case and, if so, what conclusions had been reached in that respect. Further, it had been unclear whether the judge had applied the correct test. Accordingly, the matter would be remitted to a fresh tribunal. 

Libel and slander – Defamatory words. The Queen's Bench Division awarded the claimant doctor £45,000by way of damages for libel, following the publication of an article in the Daily Mail and Mail Online. The court held that the defamatory statements made about the claimant had not been justified, the facts and matters on which the comments had been made, had not been proved and the article could not be defended as honest comment. 

Immigration – Asylum seeker. The claimant Iranian national sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's refusal to treat his further submissions as a fresh claim. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the Secretary of State had addressed her task in a manner consistent with the required approach. She had been entitled to find that the claimant's credibility had not been fully restored by his further submissions. 

Town and country planning – Planning authority. The claimant national house building companies challenged the executive committee of the first defendant local authority's decision that a draft neighbourhood plan should be put to a referendum. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the authority had properly conducted a sustainability assessment, had met the relevant basic conditions and had set out its reasons for adopting a policy enabling managed housing growth. Further, the authority's examiner had not been biased.