Latest Cases

Income tax – Residence. 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 the taxpayer had not been resident in the United Kingdom for the tax year 2006/2006 and was therefore not liable to income tax of £5.5m on a dividend of some £24.59m paid to him in that year. The tribunal decided that the FTT had taken into account irrelevant factors and had failed to have regard, or sufficient regard, to certain relevant factors. 

European Union – Public procurement. The General Court of the European Union allowed the application by Intrasoft International SA (Intrasoft) for annulment of the decision by the European Commission not to award the consortium to which Intrasoft belonged a public service contract. The General Court decided that the risk of a conflict of interests had not been objectively established and the rejection of the bid of the consortium of which the applicant had been part had not been justified and contrary to the provisions of art 94 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002. 

Gaming – Card games. The claimant English Bridge Union sought judicial review of the defendant English Sports Council's adoption of a definition of 'sport', which incorporated physical activity. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the defendant's adoption of the definition of 'sport' had been in line with both a proper interpretation of s 3 of the Physical Training and Recreation Act 1937, and a proper construction of the objects and powers contained within its Royal Charter. 

Town and country planning – Building of special architectural or historic interest. The claimant brought three related claims, challenging the decision to construct a proposed elevated chord railway, which would link three main stations in Manchester and improve rail capacity. The Planning Court, in dismissing the applications, held that the decisions of the Secretaries of State for Transport and Communities and Local Government, and the inspector they had appointed, had disclosed no error of law. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The Supreme Court considered the appellant's appeal against a decision by the defendant Secretary of State, by which his application for leave to remain in the United Kingdom had been dismissed, on the ground that the applicant had only provided bank statements covering 22 of the required 28 days. The court held that the refusal of the appellant's application had been unlawful because, properly interpreted, the process instruction by which such applications were covered had obliged the UK Border Agency first to repair the deficit in his evidence before rejecting it. 

Sentence – Mandatory life sentence. The offender, when aged 17, had played the leading role in a violent murder, for which a tariff of 14 years had been imposed. The present proceedings concerned the review of the minimum term. The Administrative Court, refused to recommend a reduction of the tariff, as the offender's progress had not been exceptional. 

Negligence – Causation. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed the claimant's claim on behalf of the estate of her deceased husband against the defendant General Practitioner who had examined the husband and discovered that he had blood pressure in the high range. The court held that, on the evidence, it was satisfied that the defendant had told the husband that his blood pressure was raised and that he should visit his regular GP to get it checked out. 

National Health Service – Medical records. An application for judicial review of the lawfulness of the guidance to the National Health Service (Charges to Overseas Visitors) Regulations 2011, SI 2011/1556, which permitted the transfer of patient data regarding non-United Kingdom resident patients to, ultimately, the Home Office for the purpose of consideration of immigration sanctions, was dismissed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the claimants' appeal. The information transferred was generally not private information vis-a-vis the Secretary of State for Health and the Home Office. The transfer was not ultra vires the NHS bodies and the Secretary of State and, finally, any interference with the claimants' rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights was in accordance with the law. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Family Division judge in a divorce/financial remedies case recused himself in a situation in which he was friends with an individual who knew the husband in the case and in a situation in which the court between hearings might be meeting AB. 

Practice – Civil litigation. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the defendants' appeal against an order granting the claimants relief from sanctions, pursuant to CPR 3.9(1), in respect of the claimants' failure to service notice on the defendants of the existence of a conditional fee agreement and an after the evident insurance policy within the period specified by CPR 44.15(1) and para 9.3(3) of the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct. There was no justification for any interference with the exercise of the judge's discretion.