Latest Cases

Criminal law – Community protection notice. A challenge to the validity of a community protection notice (CPN) was not open to a person at trial by way of defence to a charge of breach of a CPN. Consequently, the Divisional Court held that: (i) a judge did not have to satisfy themselves as to a CPN's reasonableness and/or legality; (ii) a CPN issued by the police was valid until varied, discharged (subject to judicial review) or on appeal; and (iii) the prosecution was not under a duty to call the original evidence of which complaint was made to establish that the CPN had been lawfully issued.

Value added tax – Zero-rating. The decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber)(the FTT) to allow the taxpayer football club's appeal against the Revenue and Customs Commissioners' decision to issue the taxpayer a penalty in circumstances where the taxpayer had issued a zero-rated tax certificate in respect of construction works on a new clubhouse, would be upheld. The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) held that although the FTT had erred in two aspects of its decision, its decision on the alternative issue as to whether the taxpayer had had a reasonable excuse for incorrectly issuing the certificate was unimpeachable.

Practice – Limitation of action. The defendants' further appeal against the decision of the High Court of the Isle of Man (Staff of Government Division) to dismiss their appeal against the decision of the court to allow the claimant's claim to proceed under s 30A of the Isle of Man Limitation Act 1984, was dismissed. The Privy Council found that the courts were entitled to consider all the circumstances of the case and to treat some periods of delay as more relevant than others when considering the effect of the unavailability of evidence on the balance of prejudice between the parties for the purposes of s 30A.

Landlord and tenant – Commercial lease – Construction – Rent review – Court's jurisdiction. Court of Session: In an action in which the tenants of commercial premises sought to challenge the determination of an independent surveyor appointed to determine the revised rent under the lease following the parties' inability to agree a revised rent, and the landlords argued that it followed from a clause of the lease which stated that the surveyor's determination was to be 'final and binding on the parties hereto both on fact and law' that the action was incompetent because the court had no jurisdiction, the court held that the defenders' jurisdictional challenge was well made and the pursuers' action was incompetent.

Servitude – Servitude right of access – Validity of servitude. Sheriff Court: In an action in which the pursuers sought declarator that the terms and provisions of a servitude right of access over a private road granted to the defender were of no legal effect, the court rejected the pursuers' contention that, properly understood, the terms of the grant of servitude were wholly ineffective, for want of precision, to create a servitude right of access over their land, and sustained the defender's preliminary plea that the pursuers' case was fundamentally irrelevant and should be dismissed.

Lending and security – Guarantee – Assignation – Enforcement. Court of Session: In an action in which the pursuer sought payment of £800,000 under a personal guarantee granted by the defender in favour of a bank in respect of a company of which he was a director and shareholder, the bank having sought to transfer part of its loan book, including lending to the company to the pursuer, the pursuer averring that the bank had assigned the guarantee to it, the court held that the pursuer had proved that the guarantee the defender granted in favour of the bank was of the tenor of a copy document lodged in process; that the copy of the assignation produced to the court purporting to transfer the bank's loan book to the pursuer had been proved in accordance with the laws of evidence and accordingly the pursuer had proved its title to sue; that on a proper construction of the assignation the lending to the company was assigned by the bank to the pursuer and so it had title to sue; that the assignation was valid and the pursuer was entitled to seek recovery under the personal guarantee; and that it had proved that £800,000 was due.

Patent – Validity. The second to the fourth defendant companies succeeded on their counterclaim for revocation of the claimant's European patent,

State – State immunity. The defendant state of Libya's application, seeking to vary and set aside parts of an order allowing a judgment to be enforced against it, succeeded. The Commercial Court held that in proceedings to enforce an arbitration award under the Arbitration Act 1996 s 101, a document was required for instituting proceedings against a state. That document was the arbitration claim form in a case where the court required a claim form to be served, but if it did not so require, it was the order granting permission to enforce the award. In either case, the document had to be served in accordance with s 12 of the State Immunity Act 1978.

Employment Appeal Tribunal – Practice. In the very particular circumstances of the present case, the judge had been wrong to refuse an extension of time for the appellant to appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) from a decision of the Employment Tribunal. The appellant had provided a satisfactory explanation for missing the deadline for the appeal, namely his (on the particular facts, reasonable) ignorance of the 10mb limit on the EAT server. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the appellant's appeal. The court also gave guidance on the relevance of a party's mental ill-health in the context of an application for an extension of time for appealing.

Local authority – Powers of local authority. The claimant, a practising Barelvi Muslim, failed in his judicial review claim, challenging the lawfulness of the defendant local authority's policy which precluded individuals from erecting raised edging around the grave of a deceased person. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the claim, held that the authority had acted in a way that was justified under art 9(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights, and that there had been no breach of that article, or of art 8 of the Convention, in respect of the authority's refusing to grant the claimant permission to erect a four-inch raised marble edging around his father's grave. The court further held that, contrary to the claimant's assertion, there had been no discrimination under ss 13 and 19 of the Equality Act 2010.