Latest Cases

Value added tax – Overpayment of tax. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) dismissed an appeal by the taxpayer car dealer company on the basis that the First tier (tax chamber) was entitled to infer, in the absence of documentary evidence from the taxpayer, that the taxpayer had not accounted for VAT on bonuses paid by manufacturers to the taxpayer on purchase of demonstrator and courtesy cars in relevant claim periods. 

European Union – EU institutions. The General Court of the European Union upheld the action brought by SV Capital OU (SV) for annulment of Decision 2014-C1-02 of the Board of Appeal of the European Supervisory Authorities which had dismissed the action brought by SV against the decision of the European Banking Authority to reject SV's request for an investigation to be initiated into the Estonian and Finnish financial sector supervisory authorities, pursuant to art 17(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 as a result of an alleged breach of EU law. The General Court decided that the Board of Appeal had lacked the competence to decide on that appeal on the basis of art 60(1) of that regulation. 

Immigration – Asylum. The claimant challenged the defendant Secretary of State's certification of her fresh claim for asylum as being clearly unfounded. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that there was no doubt that the decision to certify had been unlawful and that the claimant should not have been removed from the United Kingdom, as she had been. The Secretary of State was directed to ensure that the claimant might re-enter the UK. 

European Union – Freedom of movement. The Court of Justice gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that art 24 of Directive (EC) 2004/38 and art 4 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004, as amended, should be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a member state under which nationals of other member states who were in a situation such as that referred to in art 14(4)(b) of that directive were excluded from entitlement to certain 'special non-contributory cash benefits' within the meaning of art 70(2) of Regulation 883/2004, which also constituted 'social assistance' within the meaning of art 24(2) of Directive 2004/38, although those benefits were granted to nationals of the member state concerned who were in the same situation. 

Landlord and tenant – Lease. The Chancery Division held that the claimant was entitled to summary judgment on its claim against the first defendant (Dreamland) for delivery up of a mural, attributed to Banksy, which had been removed by Dreamland from the building of which it was the tenant. Dreamland had no reasonable prospect of establishing that it had been entitled, let alone obliged, to remove the mural in compliance with its repairing obligation under the lease. Further, the contention that, once removed from the building in compliance with its covenants under the lease, the mural became the property of Dreamland, rather than the landlord, by virtue of an implied term in the lease, was unsustainable as a matter of law. 

Town and country planning – Planning permission. The claimant company applied to quash the decision of the inspector appointed by the defendant Secretary of State, dismissing its appeal against a refusal to vary a condition of planning permission to allow an extension of opening hours for a restaurant. The Administrative Court, in refusing to quash the decision, held that there had clearly been evidence of complaints before the inspector and he had not failed to take into account extended licensing hours as a material consideration. 

European Union – Jurisdiction. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of arts 1(2) and 49 of Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001, and of art 47(1) of Council Regulation (EC) 2201/2003, deciding that, among other things, art 1 of Regulation 44/2001 had to be interpreted as meaning that that regulation did not apply to the enforcement in a member state of a penalty payment which was imposed in a judgment, given in another member state, concerning rights of custody and rights of access in order to ensure that the holder of the rights of custody complied with those rights of access. 

European Union – Employment. The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that art 2(1) of European Parliament and Council Directive (EC) 2003/88 had to be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, in which workers did not have a fixed or habitual place of work, the time spent by those workers travelling each day between their homes and the premises of the first and last customers designated by their employer constituted 'working time', within the meaning of that provision. 

Patent – Validity. The Patents Court ruled, among other things, that a patent for the treatment of pain, owned by the defendant company, was not invalid for obviousness. However, some of the claims of the patent were invalid on the ground of insufficiency. 

Local authority – Child protection – Failure to perform statutory duty. Court of Session: Refusing a judicial review petition brought by a father against decisions a local authority had taken in respect of his two sons, the court rejected allegations that the respondents had failed to perform their statutory duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of the two boys, and that the petitioner and his sons' rights not to be subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment had been breached, and it also held that the petitioner did not have standing to present the petition and that the respondents' plea of mora was well founded.