Latest Cases

Value added tax – Overpayment of tax. The four conjoined appeals concerned the entitlement of members of VAT groups, formed pursuant to UK legislation implementing art 11 of Directive (EC) 2006/112, to a refund of unlawfully collected VAT, in circumstances in which they had left their respective VAT group at the time when the claim for a refund had been made. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held, among other things, that neither the wording of art 11 nor the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union precluded the model of VAT grouping adopted by the UK in ss 43 and 44 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994. Accordingly, the court dismissed the appellant companies' appeals, against the decisions of the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber), that had held that the Revenue and Customs Commissioners had correctly interpreted UK domestic law in deciding that the appellants had not taken their right to a refund with them when they had left the VAT group.

Income tax – Return. The proceedings concerned the correct treatment, for income tax purposes, of the respondent taxpayer's claim for share loss relief under s 132 of the Income Tax Act 2007 (s 132). The taxpayer had sold his shares in a company, realising a capital loss of £414,50. In his return for 2009/10, he had claimed share loss relief for that amount against his income for that year, under s 132. Further, the taxpayer's return for 2010/11 had stated that relief for the share loss had been obtained in the 2009/10. The appellant, the Revenue and Customs Commissioners (HMRC) opened an enquiry into the return for 2009/10 and, later, for that of 2010/11. Subsequently, it issued a demand. In dismissing HMRC's appeal against a decision by the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in favour of the taxpayer in respect of one of two issues in contention, the Supreme Court held that the share loss relief which the taxpayer had claimed had been correctly deducted from his net income in 2009/10. The court, in so ruling, endorsed the guidance given by the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) in Eclipse Film Partners (No. 35) LLP v Revenue and Customs Commissioners[2014] STC 1114.

European Union – Public procurement. The European Parliament had been entitled to exclude the applicant company from being awarded a contract and, consequently, to reject the tenders from two consortia on the basis of their failure to comply with their obligation under art 107(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 966/2012 to provide the Parliament with information on factors capable of creating a situation that could give rise to a conflict of interests for the applicant. Consequently, the Court of Justice of the European Union dismissed the applicant's action for annulment of the Parliament's decision to reject the bids made by those two consortia, each of which had included the applicant company.

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The appellant companies' challenge to a finding that the English and Welsh court had jurisdiction to try the claim against them failed. The proceedings concerned alleged toxic emissions from a copper Mine in Zambia, and the claimants were a number of Zambian citizens. The Supreme Court held that the English court had jurisdiction to try the claims.

Negligence – Clinical negligence. In dismissing an appeal against a judges' findings regarding consent in a clinical negligence case, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held, that, in considering the issue of causation around informed consent for psychiatric injury, the judge had not made a material error of law in applying the test of 'rationality'. Further he had been correct in his assessment having regard to the medical evidence.

Sale of land – Repurchase option. The proceedings concerned a repurchase option under a contract to develop a building plot in the Cayman Islands (the property), which the appellants had purchased from the respondent company (VDM). Under the agreement for sale, the appellants had agreed with VDM that, if they defaulted in performing their obligations regarding the construction of a residence, VDM would have the right to call for the sale to it of the property. The agreement for sale was, subsequently, varied. Construction was delayed and VDM gave notice to exercise the option on two occasions. The court at first instance allowed VDM's claim for specific performance. The Court of Appeal dismissed appellants' appeal. The Privy Council, in dismissing the appellants' further appeal, held that VDM's first notice had been validly given in view of the judge's findings and those of the Court of Appeal. Among other things, the court held that there was no finding to substantiate an argument that the contract of sale, to which exercise of the option by the first notice had given rise, had then been abandoned or that the right to enforce it had been waived.

Money – Loan. The appellant company's appeal against findings of a judge in a dispute concerning a loan agreement was dismissed. The Chancery Division held that it was not possible to say that the variations to the loan that the judge had ordered had gone beyond how a judge could reasonably have exercised the broad discretion given to him. In the circumstances, the judge's variations had not been unreasonable and had been within the scope of his discretion.

Contract – Breach of contract. The appellant succeeded on his appeal against a district judge's order, which effectively upheld a claim by the appellant's former employer (a matchmaking company) that he had breached his contractual obligations of confidence by assisting the company's former client to bring a claim (the claim) against the company, alleging misrepresentation. The Queen's Bench Division held that the district judge had failed to make sufficient findings of fact to support his decision on causation, in circumstances where his judgement suggested that he had considered that the confidential information had been provided after the commencement of the claim.

Criminal evidence and procedure – Admissibility of evidence – CCTV footage – Examination of witnesses. Sheriff Appeal Court: Allowing a Crown appeal in the case of a respondent who was acquitted at trial of charges of driving whilst disqualified/without insurance after the sheriff upheld a defence submission of no case to answer, which followed a successful defence objection to certain evidence being adduced by the Crown, the court held that the sheriff was not entitled to uphold a defence objection to a police officer being asked questions about CCTV footage, and nor was she entitled to refuse the Crown's motion to interrupt the police officer's evidence to lead evidence from a witness in order to establish the provenance of the CCTV footage: the court therefore quashed the acquittal and permitted the Crown to bring a fresh prosecution.

Landlord and tenant – Abatement notice – Specific implement. Sheriff Appeal Court: Refusing an appeal in an action in which the pursuer, the landlord of premises occupied as tenant by the defender, and used by him as a takeaway restaurant, sought, inter alia, declarator that the defender was obliged in terms of the lease to carry out, at his expense, works required by an abatement notice which the local authority had served on the pursuer in respect of statutory nuisance caused by noise from the premises, the court rejected the defender's contention that the sheriff had erred in allowing proof because the pursuer's first two craves did not specify with the required precision what works he must carry out and were therefore irrelevant and/or lacking in specification—there was sufficient specification to allow the matter to proceed to proof; nor had the sheriff erred in dismissing the counterclaim as it was clear that there was no binding agreement reached in an exchange of letters.