Latest Cases

Family proceedings – Divorce. The Family Division held that given the absence in jurisdiction through s 37 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 and the lack of evidence in regard to the wife's dealing with the assets, the husband's application for reinstatement of freezing orders previously made would be dismissed. 

Income tax – Assessment. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (the tribunal) dismissed the taxpayer's appeal against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)(the FTT) in which the FTT had rejected the taxpayer's challenge to decisions of the Revenue and Customs Commissioners to issue certain notices of determination in respect of contract payments due under the construction industry scheme. The tribunal further decided that, in those circumstances, the FTT had been correct to revoke the taxpayer's gross payment status. 

Criminal law – Trial. The claimant sought an order quashing her convictions for common assault and harassment of a terrierman at a hunt on the ground that the judge should have recused himself. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the judge had had no obligation to disclose the fact that he had previously acted as solicitor for a different terrierman with the hunt. 

European Union – Public procurement. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of European Union public procurement law and, in particular, of art 23(2) of Directive (EC) 2004/18. The request had been made in proceedings between Grupo Hospitalario Quirón and the Department of Health of the Basque government and another, concerning the validity of a condition inserted in two public procurement notices. 

European Union – Public procurement. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding, among other things, that the fundamental rules and general principles of the EC Treaty should be interpreted as not precluding a provision of national law under which a contracting authority could provide that a candidate or tenderer be automatically excluded from a tendering procedure relating to a public contract for not having lodged, with its tender, a written acceptance of the commitments and declarations contained in a legality protocol, such as that at issue in the main proceedings. 

Practice – Service out of the jurisdiction. The Chancery Division had set aside the claimant's permission to serve proceedings out of the jurisdiction on HSBC in Monaco as she had failed to show that the English jurisdiction was clearly the more appropriate forum for the claim. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed her appeal as the judge had taken into account the relevant considerations and had not taken into account irrelevant ones. 

Practice – Hearing. The Secretary of State applied for a declaration, under s 6 of the Justice and Security Act 2013, to permit her to make a closed material application. The Divisional Court, in exercising the discretion to make the declaration, found the statutory pre-condition and two conditions satisfied. 

Libel and slander – Defamatory statement. The Queen's Bench Division held that in a defamation action by the claimant against the defendant, both union members, the claimant was entitled to be compensated for damage to his reputation as the attribution of forgery, especially in the context of union membership was not something which might be lightly disregarded. 

European Union – Telecommunications. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding, among other things that, the concept of 'programme' within the meaning of art 1(1)(b) of Directive 2010/13/EU should be interpreted as including, under the sub-domain of a website of a newspaper, the provision of videos of short duration consisting of local news bulletins, sports and entertainment clips. 

Health – Health care. The claimant doctors sought judicial review of the defendant Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman's report. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimants' six grounds of challenge, in particular, those alleging procedural unfairness and failure to apply the correct test.