Latest Cases

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Mercantile Court held that there here was no real prospect of the claimant succeeding in its proposed amendment claim in relation to pleading that a contract arose between it and the defendant bank such that the defendant owed the claimant a duty to conduct a review in accordance with the specification it had agreed with the FSA. There was however merit in the claimant's tort claim and therefore and on that basis permission to amend would be given. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The defendant local authority had granted two planning permissions to the interested party for the installation of a wind turbine. Condition 21 to the first permission provided that the turbine was to be of specified dimensions, unless given the written approval of the authority. The Planning Court dismissed the claimant's claim for judicial review of the first grant of planning permission, except to the extent that the 'tailpiece' to condition 21 had to be severed. It further held that the grounds challenging the second planning permission were simply not arguable. 

Value added tax – Exemptions. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (the tribunal) dismissed the appeal by the taxpayer partnership and its successor against the decision by the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) to treat the arrangements entered into by the taxpayer and two other companies as being abusive within the meaning of that concept in European Union law and therefore upholding the decision by the Revenue and Customs Commissioners to redefine those arrangements. The tribunal decided that, applying the relevant authorities, the transactions at issue were abusive and accordingly upheld the Revenue's redefinition. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) dismissed the applicant's application for judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's finding that she did not have leave to remain in the United Kingdom. Although the original decision had been unlawful, on the proper consideration of the evidence, the claim had to fail. 

Environment – Waste. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimant's application for judicial review of a decision by an inspector, appointed by the defendant Secretary of State, to dismiss the claimant's appeal against the refusal by the interested party, the Environment Agency, to grant a standard rules environmental permit. On the central issue of whether the inspector had been correct in his interpretation of art 3(15) of Parliament and Council Directive (EC) 2008/98, the claimant's case had not been made out. 

Practice – Stay of proceedings. The Family Court dismissed the applicant father's application for a stay of proceedings in a wardship dispute, where proceedings were ongoing in both England and Singapore. The court held that, on the evidence, it was more appropriate that the proceedings should be heard in the English jurisdiction. 

Mental Health – Court of Protection. The Court of Protection declined to vary or alter the principle behind an order, made pursuant to s 49 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, requiring the relevant NHS Trust to prepare a report addressing the capacity of the applicant, RS, to conduct the proceedings and to make certain decisions. It held, inter alia, that a question had arisen in relation to RS as to the extent or otherwise of her capacity. It was a matter well-suited for determination by s 49 of the Act, which was a proportionate response, as opposed to an instruction to an independent expert. 

Sentence – Life imprisonment. The appeal concerned whether, where the defendant had pleaded guilty to manslaughter for an offence committed in 2000 and had been sentenced to a discretionary life sentence 14 years later in 2014, art 7(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights operated to prevent the court imposing on the defendant a longer minimum term than would have been imposed on him at the time of the commission of the offence. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in dismissing the defendant's appeal against the specified minimum term, held that the recorder's reasoning had been entirely sound. He had rightly distinguished R v Sullivan ([2004] All ER (D) 133 (Jul)) and had followed the principles in R v H ([2011] EWCA Crim 2753). 

Capital gains tax – Assessment. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) allowed the appeal by the Revenue and Customs Commissioners against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) which had allowed the taxpayer's application under s 38(1)(b) of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 for a deduction for the sum of £17.5m, acquired when the taxpayer had disposed of his shares in a publishing company. 

Shipping – Charterparty. The Commercial Court dismissed the claimant charterers' appeal against the findings of arbitrators regarding damages awardable for a repudiatory breach of a shipping contract. The court held that the arbitrators had applied the correct principles and there was no basis to conclude that the charterers had not assumed responsibility for losses of the kind suffered.