Latest Cases

European Union – Medicinal products. The second paragraph of art 11 of Directive (EC) 2001/83 should be interpreted as meaning that, in a marketing authorisation (MA), communication to the competent national authority by the applicant or holder of a MA for a generic medicinal product of the package leaflet or a summary of the product characteristics of that medicinal product which did not include any reference to indications or dosage forms which were still covered by patent law at the time that medicinal product had been placed on the market constituted a request to limit the scope of the MA of the generic medicinal product in question. The Court of Justice of the European Union so held in a preliminary ruling in proceedings concerning the decentralised MA procedure for a generic medicinal product provided for in art 28 of that directive.

Child – Care. A local authority was not absolutely required, or under a duty (by statute or otherwise), to inform or consult members of a child's extended family about the existence of that child or the plans for his adoption, in circumstances where they had not been proposed by the child's parents as potential alternative carers and where the parents (or either of them) specifically did not wish the wider family to be involved. In such circumstances, the court, and/or the authority or adoption agency, could exercise its broad judgment on the facts of each individual case, taking into account all of the circumstances, but attaching primacy to the welfare of the subject child. The Family Court so ruled concerning the authority's application for guidance on whether it should take steps to track down the paternal family members of a five-month-old baby (who was the subject of an interim care order and whose parents had a history of substance misuse and alcohol abuse), to notify them of his existence, with a view to assessing them, notwithstanding the father's objection. The court held that, on the facts, it was in the child's best interests for the wider paternal family to be notified of his existence.

Immigration – Asylum. The appellants' submissions were inadequate to demonstrate that the approach of the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) to their appeal against the respondent Secretary of State's refusal of their asylum claims had been wrong. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed their appeals.

Immigration – Asylum. The facts of the case had not demonstrated particularly strong features of a private life which outweighed the normative guidance in ss 117A and 117B of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 and there had been very little in the appellant's personal circumstances to suggest that he would face 'very significant obstacles' to his integration in Kabul. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appellant's appeal, further held that he had not shown that he would 'solely on account of his presence' face a real risk of being subject to the serious threat of violence.

Proceeds of crime – Confiscation order. The defendant's lack of legal interest in a bank account did not lead to the conclusion that he had not obtained the funds he controlled. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, further held that there was no principled basis for measuring the defendant's benefit from criminal conduct by reference to the amount of tax evaded, when it had not been he but others who had evaded it.

Bankruptcy – Property available for distribution. The claimant joint trustees in bankruptcy had not established on the balance of probability that the bankrupt had a claim identified by a third party in mind, pursuant to s 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986, when making various gifts to his first defendant wife. Accordingly, the Chancery Division dismissed the joint trustees claim for the relevant gifts to be set aside.

Negligence – Causation. The Queens Bench Division held that the defendant was not liable, in negligence, for the injuries caused to the claimant when he was run over by the defendant's car, as the defendant's actions had not fallen below the standard of a reasonable driver placed in the threatening and rapidly deteriorating situation in which he had found himself.

Company – Director. The Commercial Court made rulings of fact in a case concerning the removal of the defendant, T, from the board of the claimant company. Among other things, the court held that T had committed serious breaches of his fiduciary and contractual duties. The company had breached its duty to act for proper purposes in transferring certain shares to the relevant employment benefit trust, but not otherwise as alleged. The dismissal of T had been a lawful and valid act.

European Union – Value added tax. European Union law precluded national legislation which provided for the application of a measure derogating from art 193 of Council Directive (EC) 2006/112, as amended by Council Directive (EU) 2013/43, before the EU act authorising that derogation had been notified to the member state which had requested it, despite the fact that that EU act did not mention the date of its entry into force or the date from which it applied, even if that member state had expressed the wish for that derogation to apply with retroactive effect. The Court of Justice of the European Union so held in a preliminary ruling in proceedings concerning the payment of VAT by a taxable person who had been supplied with services subject to VAT.

Income tax – Tax avoidance scheme. The capital contracts arrangements that the taxpayer company was involved in were 'notifiable' arrangements within the meaning of s 306 of the Finance Act 2004. However, the taxpayer's activities did not fall within s 307(1)(a)(ii) or (iii) and accordingly, it was not a promoter of those arrangements within s 307(1)(b) of that Act. Consequently, the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) dismissed the Revenue and Customs Commissioners' application for an order, pursuant to s 314A of the Act, that those arrangements were 'notifiable' arrangements.