Month: July 2015

Foulser and Another v HM Revenue and Customs; UTTC 25 Jan 2013

References: [2013] UKUT 38 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
UTTC PROCEDURE – JURISDICTION- alleged abuse of process -First-tier Tribunal has jurisdiction to deal with alleged abuse of process which affects fair hearing of tax appeal but does not have jurisdiction to consider an allegation of unlawful behaviour in public law – possible misunderstanding of Appellants’ case – appeal allowed – case remitted to First-tier Tribunal

British Association of Leisure Parks, Piers and Attractions Led v Revenue and Customs; UTTC 12 Mar 2013

References: [2013] UKUT 130 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
UTTC Value Added Tax – claim to repayment of output tax allegedly overpaid – whether services provided by Appellant Association to its members exempt under Value Added Tax Act 1994, Schedule 9, Group 9, Item 1(d) – whether primary purpose of Association was lobbying – whether any exemption under Item 1(d) disapplied by Note 5 – whether membership of Association restricted in accordance with Note 5 – whether defence to repayment of allegedly overpaid output tax on the ground of unjust enrichment

HMRC v The British Disabled Flying Association; UTTC 26 Mar 2013

References: [2013] UKUT 162 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
UTTC VAT – zero rating – aircraft for use by disabled persons – whether aircraft modified for use by disabled persons after manufacture are ‘ designed’ for such use – held yes but one aircraft not so designed at time of supply – whether Respondent is a ‘ relevant establishment’ for the purposes of Group 15 to Schedule 8 VAT Act 1994 – held no – whether Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide whether appellant had legitimate expectation – held no – appeal allowed in relation to one aircraft and dismissed in relation to the other

Cleanaco Ltd v Revenue and Customs; Excs 11 Jan 2007

References: [2007] UKVAT-Excise E01012
Links: Bailii
Excs EXCISE DUTY – Duty suspension – Diversion of spirits on dispatch from authorised warehouse – Liability of owner – False AADs prepared on instructions of owner’s employees without directors’ knowledge – Whether irregularity caused by Appellant – Notice under DSMEG Regs 2001 (S.I.2001/3022) reg 7(2) – Whether prior excise duty point under REDS Regs 1992 (S.I. 1992/3135) reg 4(2)(a) – Validity of assessment under FA 1994 s.12(1A) – Greenalls Management [2005] 1 WLR 1754, HL considered – Excise Directive (EEC/92/12) Art 20 – Assessment to VAT under VATA 1994 s.73(7B) – Appeal dismissed

West Virginia State Board of Education v Barnette; 14 Jun 1943

References: (1943) 319 US 624, [1943] USSC 130, 63 SCt 1178, 87 LEd 1628
Links: Worldlii
Coram: Jackson J
(United States Supreme Court) Jackson J said: ‘If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion or other matters of opinion to force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us.’
This case is cited by:

Jones v Metal Box Ltd; 11 Jan 2007

References: Unreported, 11 January 2007
Coram: Judge Hickinbottom
(Cardiff County Court) The court considered a claim for damages from asbestos exposure giving rise to mesothelioma. As to considering medical causation: unless the claimant could show that the risk was doubled by the exposure alleged, then it is more likely than not that the mesothelioma had an idiopathic rather than an occupational cause.
This case is cited by:

HM Revenue and Customs v Volkswagen Financial Services (UK) Ltd; UTTC 12 Nov 2012

References: [2012] UKUT 394 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
UTTC VAT – partial exemption special method – hire purchase transactions – taxable supplies of motor vehicles and exempt supplies of credit – whether residual cost inputs have a direct and immediate link with and are cost components of taxable supplies of motor vehicles – whether a methodology which attributes 50% of residual input tax to taxable supplies is fair and reasonable.

MacMillan v Thomas Reed; PatCC 1993

References: [1993] FSR 455
Coram: Mummery J
(Patents County Court) Both parties published almanacs for yachtsmen. The plaintiff claimed copyright infringement and an injunction.
Held: An injunction was granted. Enough had been done by the plaintiff to show that in creating the work at issue, it had relied upon work labour and skills invested in an earlier version of the work. There was no issue for trial as to originality, and an injunction was appropriate.
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Ludlow Music Inc -v- Williams and others ChD (Bailii, [2000] EWHC 456 (Ch), [2001] EMLR 7, [2001] FSR 19)
    The claimant sought damages for copyright infringement in respect of two works which parodied a song to which they owned the rights.
    Held: The amount copied, being as much as a quarter of the original work, meant that the claim was . .

(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 11-Nov-15 Ref: 272767

Blomley v Ryan; 28 Mar 1956

References: (1956) 99 CLR 362, [1956] HCA 81
Links: Austlii
Coram: Taylor J, McTiernan J, Fullagar J, and Kitto J
(High Court of Australia) Equity – Contract for sale and purchase of grazing property – Suit for specific performance brought by purchaser – Vendor aged and affected by long bout of rum drinking – Claim to set aside contract – Unconscionable bargain – Constructive fraud – Circumstances in which courts of equity will grant relief.
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Alec Lobb (Garages) Ltd -v- Total Oil Ltd QBD ([1983] 1 All ER 944, [1983] 1 WLR 87)
    To establish that a contract was unconscionable, a party had to have made an unconscientious use of its superior position or superior bargaining power to the detriment of someone suffering from some special disability or disadvantage. This weakness . .
  • Cited – Ramzan -v- Brookwide Ltd ChD (Bailii, [2010] EWHC 2453 (Ch), [2011] 2 All ER 38)
    The claimant owned a flying freehold room butting into the defendant’s property. Whilst the claimant’s property was unoccupied, the defendant broke through into the room, blocked off the door to the claimant’s property, and included the room in the . .

‘The Alev’: 1989

References: [1989] 1 Lloyds Rep 138
The plaintiffs had chartered a vessel to hirers to carry the defendants goods. The hirers defaulted and the plaintiffs were in turn obliged to carry the goods but at extra costs which they passed on to the defendants who agreed to pay extra costs and not to detain or arrest the vessel while in port. This agreement was secured through threats, including a statement that unless the defendants paid the extra costs they would not get their cargo. When the ship was in port and had commenced unloading the defendants ignored the agreement and arrested the ship. They pleaded duress to any breach of contract and claimed damages.
Held: The agreement had been made under economic duress. The plaintiffs had issued an unlawful threat against the goods, and they knew that, since they were legally obliged to carry the cargo, even if at a loss of profit to themselves, such a threat would be unlawful.

Coll and Coll v HM Revenue and Customs; UTTC 5 Mar 2010

References: [2010] UKUT 114 (TCC), [2010] STI 2112, [2010] BTC 1513, [2010] STC 1849
Links: Bailii
Coram: Avery Jones CBE
UTTC CAPITAL GAINS TAX – exchange of shares for debentures – whether TCGA 1992 s 137 applies to each shareholder separately – no – whether Special Commissioner entitled to conclude that the main purpose was tax avoidance – yes – appeal dismissed
Statutes: Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 137

Jindal Iron and Steel Co Ltd and others v Islamic Solidarity Shipping Company Jordan Inc (‘The Jordan II’): HL 25 Nov 2004

References: [2004] UKHL 49, Times 26-Nov-2004, [2005] 1 WLR 1363, [2005] 1 All ER 175
Links: Bailii, House of Lords
Coram: Lord Bingham of Cornhill Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead Lord Steyn Lord Hoffmann Lord Scott of Foscote
Cargo was damaged by rough handling during loading and/or discharging, and/or inadequate stowage due to failure to provide dunnage, failure to secure the coils and/or stacking them so that the bottom layers were excessively compressed. The House was asked to depart from an interpretation of the rules which had stood and been applied for more than fifty years.
Held: There was no sufficient reason for departing from the rule in Renton. The House had to be aware that many commercial contracts had been put in place in reliance upon the existing interpretation, and other parties would be affected. Any change ought to make allowance for each of those interests. A review was current by UNCITRAL, and the House refused to overturn the long standing interpretation of the rules.
Statutes: Hague-Visby Rules A2
This case cites:

  • Cited – Pyrene Co Ltd -v- Scindia Navigation Co Ltd QBD ([1954] 2 QB 402)
    The fob contract has become a flexible instrument and it does not necessarily follow that the buyer is an original party to the contract of carriage. The effect of article III, r. 2 of the Hague-Visby Rules was not to override freedom of contract to . .
  • Appeal from – Jindal Iron and Steel Co Ltd and others -v- Islamic Solidarity Company Jordan Inc and Another CA (Bailii, [2003] EWCA Civ 144, [2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 87)
    The question was whether a carrier is liable to cargo owners when the latter, or their stevedores, perform their duties improperly or carelessly; whether an agreement which transfers responsibility for these operations from the shipowners to . .
  • Cited – Practice Statement (Judicial Precedent) HL ([1966] 3 All ER 77, [1966] 1 WLR 1234)
    The House gave guidance how it would treat an invitation to depart from a previous decision of the House. Such a course was possible, but the direction was not an ‘open sesame’ for a differently constituted committee to prefer their views to those . .
  • Cited – The Ciechocinek CA ([1976] 1 Lloyds Rep 489)
    . .
  • Cited – The Coral CA ([1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 1)
    . .
  • Cited – The Holstencruiser ([1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 378)
    . .
  • Cited – The Arawa ([1977] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 416)
    . .
  • Cited – The Panaghia Tinnou ([1986] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 586)
    . .
  • Cited – The Strathnewton CA ([1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 219)
    . .
  • Cited – The Filikos ([1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 555)
    . .
  • Cited – Regina -v- Governor of Her Majesty’s Prison Brockhill ex parte Evans (No 2) HL (Times 02-Aug-00, House of Lords, Gazette 17-Aug-00, Bailii, [2000] 3 WLR 843, [2001] 2 AC 19, [2000] UKHL 48, [2000] 4 All ER 15, [2000] UKHRR 836)
    The release date for a prisoner was calculated correctly according to guidance issued by the Home Office, but case law required the guidance to be altered, and the prisoner had been detained too long. The tort of false imprisonment is one of strict . .
  • Cited – Vallejo -v- Wheeler ((1774) 1 Cowp 143)
    ‘In all mercantile transactions the great object should be certainty: and therefore, it is of more consequence that a rule should be certain, than whether the rule is established one way or the other. Because speculators in trade then know what . .
  • Cited – Homburg Houtimport BV -v- Agrosin Private Ltd (the ‘Starsin’) HL (House of Lords, [2003] UKHL 12, Bailii, Times 17-Mar-03, Gazette 15-May-03, [2003] 2 WLR 711, [2004] 1 AC 715, [2003] 1 CLC 921, 2003 AMC 913, [2003] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 571, [2003] 1 All ER (Comm) 625, [2003] 2 All ER 785, [2003] 1 LLR 571)
    Cargo owners sought damages for their cargo which had been damaged aboard the ship. The contract had been endorsed with additional terms. That variation may have changed the contract from a charterer’s to a shipowner’s bill.
    Held: The specific . .
  • Cited – Chandris -v- Isbrandtsen-Moller Co Inc CA ([1951] 1 KB 240, (1950) 2 All ER 618, (1950) 84 Lloyds Rep 347)
    Although section 3(1) of the 1934 Act expressly empowered only courts of record to include interest in sums for which judgment was given for damages or debt, arbitrators were nevertheless empowered by the agreement of reference to apply English law, . .
  • Cited – Regina -v- G and R HL (House of Lords, [2003] UKHL 50, Bailii, Times 17-Oct-03, Gazette 13-Nov-03, [2003] 3 WLR 1060, [2004] 1 AC 1034, Bailii, (2003) 167 JP 621, (2003) 167 JPN 955, [2004] 1 Cr App R 21, [2003] 4 All ER 765)
    The defendants, young boys, had set fire to paper and thrown the lit papers into a wheelie bin, expecting the fire to go out. In fact substantial damage was caused. The House was asked whether a conviction was proper under the section where the . .
  • Cited – Brys & Gylsen -v- J and J Drysdale & Co ((1920) 4 Ll L Rep 24)
    A literal interpretation of the Rules indicates that, where shippers and consignees select and pay for stevedoring, cargo claimants may recover compensation from owners for the negligence of cargo owners or the negligence of their stevedores, but . .
  • Cited – Chandris -v- Isbrandtsen-Moller Co Inc CA ([1951] 1 KB 240, (1950) 2 All ER 618, (1950) 84 Lloyds Rep 347)
    Although section 3(1) of the 1934 Act expressly empowered only courts of record to include interest in sums for which judgment was given for damages or debt, arbitrators were nevertheless empowered by the agreement of reference to apply English law, . .
  • Cited – Fothergill -v- Monarch Airlines Ltd HL ([1980] 2 All ER 696, [1980] 3 WLR 209, [1981] AC 251, mercatoria, Bailii, [1980] UKHL 6)
    The plaintiff, on arriving at the airport found that his luggage had been lost. The defendant denied liability saying he had not notified his claim within the requisite period.
    Held: Elementary justice requires that the rules by which the . .
  • Cited – Riverstone Meat Co Pty Ltd -v- Lancashire Shipping Co Ltd HL ([1961] AC 807)
    Cargo was damaged in the course of a voyage by the failure of a fitter employed by ship repairers to secure the inspection cover on a storm valve. The cargo owner sued the shipowner in contract, and recovered.
    Held: It was no defence that the . .

This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Golden Strait Corporation -v- Nippon Yusen Kubishka Kaisha (‘The Golden Victory’) HL (Bailii, [2007] UKHL 12, Times 30-Mar-07, [2007] 2 Lloyds Rep 164, [2007] Bus LR 997, [2007] 3 All ER 1, [2007] 2 AC 353, [2007] 1 CLC 352, [2007] 2 WLR 691, [2007] 2 All ER (Comm) 97)
    The claimant sought damages for repudiation of a charterparty. The charterpary had been intended to continue until 2005. The charterer repudiated the contract and that repudiation was accepted, but before the arbitrator could set his award, the Iraq . .
  • Cited – Golden Strait Corporation -v- Nippon Yusen Kubishka Kaisha (‘The Golden Victory’) HL (Bailii, [2007] UKHL 12, Times 30-Mar-07, [2007] 2 Lloyds Rep 164, [2007] Bus LR 997, [2007] 3 All ER 1, [2007] 2 AC 353, [2007] 1 CLC 352, [2007] 2 WLR 691, [2007] 2 All ER (Comm) 97)
    The claimant sought damages for repudiation of a charterparty. The charterpary had been intended to continue until 2005. The charterer repudiated the contract and that repudiation was accepted, but before the arbitrator could set his award, the Iraq . .

HM Customs and Excise v Jack Baars Wholesale, Baars, and Baars; CmpC 16 Jan 2004

References: [2004] EWHC 18 (Ch), [2004] BPIR 543
Links: Bailii
Coram: Mr Justice Lindsay
Statutes: Insolvent Partnerships Order 1994
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Re Autotech Design Ltd, HMRC -v- Autotech Design Ltd ChD ([2006] EWHC 1596 (Ch))
    Michael Briggs QC summarised the approach to be adopted by the court at the hearing of for the appointment of an interim liquidator pending the hearing of an insolvency petition brought by the Revenue: ‘Although the formulations of the approach to . .
  • Cited – Revenue & Customs -v- SED Essex Ltd ChD (Bailii, [2013] EWHC 1583 (Ch))
    The Revenue sought the winding up of the company for non-payment of substantial arrears of VAT. The revenue had declined to allow VAT input claims. The company said that the petition was wrong since the debt was genuinely disputed.
    Held: The . .

Bridge Oil Ltd v The Owners and/or demise charters of the Ship ‘Guiseppe Di Vittorio’ (No. 2): AdCt 21 Nov 1997

References: [1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 661
Coram: Clarke J
Effect of State Immunity (Merchant Shipping) Order 1997 Court ordered sale of vessel pendente lite on 15th July. Court of Appeal dismissed appeal on 29th October and refused a stay. State Immunity (Merchant Shipping) Order 1997 made on 30th October and came into force on 1st November. Republic submitted that the court should not allow vessel to be sold by reason of paragraph 3 of the Order. Held that paragraph 3 should not be construed as applying to vessels which the court had already ordered to be sold, inter alia, because to do so would be to interfere with or impair plaintiffs’ earlier rights under an Order of the court.
Statutes: State Immunity (Merchant Shipping) Order 1997 3
This case cites:

This case is cited by:

P V Narashimo Rao v State; 17 Apr 1998

References: [1998] INSC 229
Links: LII of India
(Supreme Court of India) Members of Parliament were protected by privilege from prosecution for bribery in respect of voting in parliamentary proceedings.
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Chaytor and Others, Regina -v- SC (Bailii, [2010] UKSC 52, Bailli Summary, [2010] WLR (D) 311, WLRD, UKSC 2010/0195, SC Summary, SC, [2011] 1 Cr App R 22, [2010] 3 WLR 1707, [2011] 1 All ER 805)
    The defendants faced trial on charges of false accounting in connection in different ways with their expenses claims whilst serving as members of the House of Commons. They appealed against rejection of their assertion that the court had no . .

Sidney Cordle and Scott Briscoe Limited v Financial Services Authority; UTTC 2 Jan 2013

References: [2013] UKUT B1 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
UTTC FINANCIAL SERVICES – authorisation to carry on regulated activity – approval to perform controlled functions – decisions to refuse applications – fit and proper – whether candidate for approval satisfied honesty and integrity criteria – failure to disclose prior investigation in applications for permission and approval – subsequent concealment by individual candidate – decision to reject applications upheld.

Dundon v The Governor of Cloverhill Prison; 19 Dec 2005

References: [2006] 1 IR 518, [2005] IESC 83, [2006] 1 ILRM 321
Links: Bailii
Coram: Murray CJ, Denham J, Hardiman J. Geoghegan J, Fennelly J
(Supreme Court of Ireland) The UK had issued a European arrest warrant in relation to the appellant. On 11 February 2004 he was arrested in Ireland and remanded in custody. 93 days later, following various adjournments of which some had been at his request, the High Court made an order for his surrender. On 16 March 2005, thus following a significant further delay, the Supreme Court dismissed his appeal. He forthwith issued fresh proceedings in which, by reference to his rights under the Irish Constitution, he challenged the lawfulness of his continued detention after the expiry of 60 days following his arrest. Ireland had transposed the Decision into its law by the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003.
Held: Section 16(10) did not automatically entitle the appellant to release on the expiry of 60 days (nor, by analogy, did section 16(11) have that effect on the expiry of 90 days) from the date of his arrest. The terms of section 10 of the Irish Act provided: ‘Where a judicial authority in an issuing state duly issues a European arrest warrant in respect of a person –
(a) against whom that state intends to bring proceedings for the offence to which the . . warrant relates, or
(b) . . that person shall, subject to and in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the Framework Decision be arrested and surrendered to the issuing state.’ The appellant argued that, even if the terms of section 16(10) and (11) of that Act were not strong enough to secure the success of his appeal, the effect of section 10 was to bring the whole of the Decision into Irish law and that an overall reading of the Decision entitled him to release, and that, whereas section 16(10) and (11) place time limits of 60 and 90 days on the making only of the decision by the High Court, Article 17(3) and (4) of the Decision requires that the ‘final’ decision be made within those limits; and, by reference thereto, he appears also to have relied upon the significant further delay between the making of the order for his surrender and the hearing of his appeal. The terms of section 10 of the Irish Act required the Court to appraise the Decision in detail. Denham J described the time limits of 60 days and 90 days in Article 17(3) and (4) of the Decision as ‘exhortation’; and Geoghegan J explained that they were set ‘with a view to internal discipline within the member states and not with a view to conferring individual rights in individual cases’..
Statutes: Council Framework Decision of 13th June 2002
This case is cited by:

Confederation Europeenne De L’Industrie De La Chaussure v Ba.La. Di Lanciotti Vittorio and v Sas: ECJ 15 Nov 2012

References: C-247/10, [2012] EUECJ C-247/10
Links: Bailii
Coram: K. Lenaerts
ECJ Appeal – Dumping – Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 – Imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in China and Vietnam – Regulation (EC) No 384/96 – Article 2(7)(b) – Market economy treatment – Article 9(6) – Individual treatment – Article 17(3) – Sampling – Article 20(5) – Rights of the defence

Singh v Customs and Excise; Excs 16 Aug 2004

References: [2004] UKVAT-Excise E00782
Links: Bailii
Excs EXCISE DUTY – Restoration of seized excise goods and motor vehicle – Tribunal finds that the Appellant purchased the goods for use by family – the non restoration of the motor vehicle was disproportionate and caused exceptional hardship – Review Officer failed to apply the facts to the Respondents’ policies on restoration and the 2002 Regulations – Review Officer wrongly restricted consideration of the restoration of the motor vehicle to the question of legal ownership – decision not to restore unreasonable – appeal allowed – further review ordered

Pontina Ambiente v Regione Lazio (Environment And Consumers); 25 Feb 2010

References: C-172/08, [2010] EUECJ C-172/08
Links: Bailii
Coram: C Toader, P
ECJ Environment Directive 1999/31/EC Article 10 Special levy on the disposal of solid waste in landfills Operator of a landfill subject to that levy Operating costs of a landfill Directive 2000/35/EC Default interest
Statutes: Directive 1999/31/EC, Directive 2000/35/EC
This case cites:

Lex Services plc v Her Majesty’s Commissioners of Customs and Excise: HL 4 Dec 2003

References: [2003] UKHL 67, Gazette 22-Jan-2004, [2004] STC 73
Links: House of Lords, Bailii
Coram: Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Steyn, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Millett, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe
When taking a car in part exchange, the company would initially offer the correct market value. If the customer wanted, the company would agree a higher price. When cars were returned, the company at first reclaimed the VAT on the re-purchase price, but then submitted a rebate claim based upon the market value, the ‘non-monetary consideration’, which was a ‘subjective value’, in this case the value which the parties had expressly adoptd adopted to the goods on th first sale. The value of a part-exchange car was to be taken to be the full part-exchange price as agreed and not ‘true value’. That latter value served only to limit any possible refund. The part-exchange price could not properly be characterised as part of a discount on the price of the replacement car. Appeal dismissed
Statutes: Sixth Directive (77/388/EEC)
This case cites:

  • Appeal from – Lex Services plc -v- Commissioners of Customs and Excise; Customs & Excise Commissioners v Littlewoods Organisation Plc CA (Times 07-Nov-01, Gazette 29-Nov-01, [2001] STC 1568)
    The taxpayer took cars in part exchange on the sale of new cars. If the car was returned, the real value of the part exchange car was refunded. The taxpayer sought to be taxed on the real value of the car.
    Held: The tax was payable on the . .
  • Cited – Staatsecretaris Van Financien -v- Cooperatieve Aardappelenbewaarplaats ECJ ([1981] ECR 445, C-154/80, R-154/80, Bailii, [1981] EUECJ R-154/80)
    (The Dutch Potato case) A farmers’ cooperative owned a refrigerated potato store. During 1975 and 1976 it came to be unnecessary, because it was planning to sell the store, to levy the usual storage charges on its members. Dutch tax officials . .
  • Cited – Argos Distributors -v- Commissioners of Customs & Excise ECJ (Times 18-Nov-96, Europa, C-288/94, [1996] STC 1359, [1996] ECR I-5311, Bailii, [1996] EUECJ C-288/94, [1997] QB 499)
    VAT was payable on the value of a discount voucher only, and not on the full price of the goods. ‘According to the court’s settled case law, the taxable amount for the supply of goods or services is represented by the consideration actually received . .
  • Cited – C R Smith Glaziers (Dunfermline) Limited -v- Commissioners of Customs and Excise HL (House of Lords, Times 21-Feb-03, Bailii, [2003] UKHL 7, [2003] STC 419)
    The taxpayer sold double glazing, supported by an insured guarantee, for which a charge was made. The additional charge was exempt, but it was contended that the contract should have stated the amount pursuant to Note 5.
    Held: The contract . .
  • Cited – Naturally Yours Cosmetics Ltd -v- Commissioners of Customs and Excise ECJ (Europa, C-230/87, [1988] ECR 6365)
    A cosmetics wholesaler offered to a beauty consultant, acting as retailer, a pot of rejuvenating cream at the special price of £1.50. The consultant was to give the cream to a chosen retail customer (referred to as a hostess) as a reward for . .
  • Cited – Rosgill Group Ltd -v- Commissioners of Customs and Excise CA (Times 30-Apr-97, Bailii, [1997] EWCA Civ 1502)
    A party hostess had been allowed to buy for £20.76 a blouse with a catalogue price of £27.99.
    Held: The monetary equivalent of the consideration for the hostess’s services in arranging the party was the difference £7.23: ‘The . .
  • Cited – Empire Stores -v- Commissioners of Customs and Excise ECJ (Times 08-Jul-94, Europa, C-33/93, [1994] ECR – I 2329, Bailii, [1994] EUECJ C-33/93)
    A retail mail-order supplier, had run two promotions, a ‘self-introduction’ scheme and a ‘introduce a friend’ scheme. Under either scheme the introducer (once she or her friend had been approved, placed an order and paid for it) became entitled to . .
  • Cited – Commissioners of Customs & Excise -v- Westmorland Motorway Services Ltd CA (Times 05-Feb-98, [1998] STC 431)
    Westmorland ran motorway service stations. Its practice, known to coach drivers, was to provide, without payment, a packet of cigarettes and a self-service meal (chosen from its usual menu) to any coach driver who brought a coach with at least . .
  • Cited – Rompelman -v- Minister van Financien (Judgment) ECJ (Europa, C-268/83, [1985] ECR I-655)
    A trader who decided to acquire property for letting could claim repayment of VAT on the cost of a right to acquire a building which had not yet been constructed, let alone tenanted. . .
  • Cited – Elida Gibbs Ltd -v- Commissioners of Customs and Excise ECJ (Times 12-Nov-96, Europa, Case C-317/94, [1996] STC 1387)
    VAT is chargeable only on the price of goods as discounted to agents.
    Europa Where (a) a manufacturer issues a money-off coupon, which is redeemable at the amount stated on the coupon by or at the expense . .
  • Cited – Jennifer Gregg and Mervyn Gregg -v- Commissioners of Customs and Excise ECJ (Times 19-Oct-99, Europa, C-216/97, [1999] STC 934, Bailii, [1999] EUECJ C-216/97)
    For the purposes of Value Added Tax, the terms ‘Establishments’ and ‘organisations’ did not only refer to legal entities as such, but included natural persons, and in this case, particularly, partnerships. Accordingly a partnership running a nursing . .
  • Cited – Staatssecretaris van Financien -v- Coffeeshop ‘Siberie’ vof ECJ (Times 08-Jul-99, Europa, C-158/98, [1999] STC 742, Bailii, [1999] EUECJ C-158/98)
    A cafe owner rented a table out to a drug dealer. He was charged VAT on the rent, but denied liability on the basis that it was an illegal activity and not taxable. However the renting itself was not unlawful either under national Netherlands law or . .
  • Cited – BLP Group -v- Commissioners of Customs & Excise ECJ (Times 17-Apr-95, Europa, C-4/94, [1995] ECR I-983, [1996] 1 WLR 174, [1995] STC 424, Bailii, [1995] EUECJ C-4/94)
    The use of taxable goods for an exempt transaction disallowed a claim against VAT input tax. The use in that provision of the words ‘for transactions’ shows that to give the right to deduct under paragraph 2, the goods or services in question must . .
  • Cited – Mirror Group plc -v- Commissioners of Customs and Excise, Cantor Fitzgerald International -v- Same ECJ (Europa, Europa, Times 07-Nov-01, C-409/98, C-108/99, [2002] QB 546, [2001] STC 1453, Bailii, [2001] EUECJ C-108/99, Bailii, [2001] EUECJ C-409/98)
    A potential lessee who did not have an interest in immovable property agreed to take a lease in return for money paid by the landlord. The transaction was not exempt from value-added tax under article 13(B)(b) as ‘the leasing or letting of immovable . .
  • Cited – Commissioners of Customs and Excise -v- Hartwell Plc QBD ([2002] STC 22)
    Motor traders gave customers a voucher to be set off against the cost of a replacement car and other services.
    Held: Patten J said: ‘The Purchase Plus allowance is negotiated and agreed as a reduction by Hartwell in the amount which the . .
  • Cited – Commissioners of Customs and Excise -v- Hartwell Plc CA (Bailii, [2003] EWCA Civ 130, Gazette 03-Apr-03, Times 17-Jun-03, [2003] STC 396)
    The taxpayers were motor traders. On agreeing a sale package with a customer, they issued to the customer a voucher worth more than the agreed trade-in value, to be used as credit against the purchase from the taxpayer. They also gave customers MOT . .
  • Cited – Kuwait Petroleum (GB) Ltd -v- Commissioners of Customs and Excise ECJ (Times 14-May-99, Europa, C-48/97, [1999] STC 488, Bailii, [1999] EUECJ C-48/97)
    ‘Items’ described as gifts’ which Kuwait Petroleum exchanged under a petrol promotion scheme for vouchers received by customers purchasing petrol were issued ‘free of charge’. The purchase of petrol and the exchange of vouchers for gifts were . .
  • Cited – Boots Company plc -v- Commissioners of Customs and Excise ECJ (Europa, C-126/88, [1990] STC 387)
    In the simple case of a voucher which the issuer himself redeems by allowing a discount on a purchase from himself, the voucher is not property but is simply evidence of an obligation to give a discount. . .
  • At first instance – Lex Services Plc -v- Commissioners of Customs and Excise ChD (Times 17-Oct-00, Gazette 07-Sep-00, [2000] STC 697)
    The taxpayer took in cars in part exchange at a cost higher than the re-sale value. The Commissioners sought to collect VAT on the higher price as shown in the agreements, and the tax payer on the actual value.
    Held: Where the parties . .
  • Cited – Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd -v- West Bromwich Building Society HL (Times 24-Jun-97, House of Lords, Bailii, [1997] UKHL 28, [1998] 1 All ER 98, [1998] 1 WLR 896, [1998] AC 896)
    The respondent gave advice on home income plans. The individual claimants had assigned their initial claims to the scheme, but later sought also to have their mortgages in favour of the respondent set aside.
    Held: Investors having once . .

(This list may be incomplete)
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Revenue and Customs -v- Debenhams Retail Plc CA (Bailii, [2005] EWCA Civ 892, Times 26-Jul-05)
    The store introduced a system whereby when a customer paid by credit card, the charges made to them for card handling were expressed as a separate amount on the receipt. The store then said that VAT was payable only on the net amount allocated to . .

(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 03-Mar-16 Ref: 188433

Stevens v Head; 18 Mar 1993

References: [1993] HCA 19, (1993) 112 ALR 7, [1993] Aust Torts Reports 81-203, (1993) 17 MVR 1, (1993) 67 ALJR 343, [1993] 176 CLR 433
Links: Austlii
Coram: Mason CJ, Brennan, Deane, Dawson, Toohey, Gudron, McHugh JJ
(High Court of Australia) The court considered a claim for damages arising out of a motor accident in New South Wales, where the claim had been brought in the courts of Queensland. The questions arose as to whether or not a provision in the Motor Accidents Act 1988 of New South Wales which limited the amount of damages which could be recovered in respect of non-economic loss was a substantive rule to be applied as part of the lex causae.
Held: In relation to questions of the quantification of damage, anything beyond the ascertainment of the heads of liability is a procedural question, and thus referring to a New South Wales statute: ‘section 79 is plainly a provision which affects the measure of damages but does not touch the heads of liability in respect of which damages might be awarded. It is simply a law relating to the quantification of damages and that, as we have seen, is a matter governed solely by the lex fori.’
Mason CJ: ‘The law relating to damages is partly procedural and partly substantive. According to the traditional application of the substance-procedure distinction, the question whether legislative provisions dealing with awards of damages are substantive or procedural has been approached by asking whether the provisions affect the character of the wrong actionable or go only to the measure of compensation. This approach is consistent with the equation traditionally drawn between matters of procedure and matters relating to remedies.’
This case cites:

  • Cited – Cope -v- Doherty CA ((1858) 2 De G and J 614)
    Turner LJ: ‘An attempt was made on the part of the appellants to bring this case within Don v Lippman and cases of that class, but I think those cases have no bearing upon the point. This is a question of liability, and not of procedure.’ . .

This case is cited by:

  • Approved – Roerig -v- Valiant Trawlers Ltd CA ([2002] All ER (D) 234, Bailii, [2002] EWCA Civ 21, [2002] 1 WLR 2304)
    The claimant who was Dutch, was a widow of a fisherman who had died at sea. The question on appeal was ‘in assessing damages for loss of dependency should benefits resulting from the loss be deducted from the damages?’ The claimant’s position under . .
  • Cited – Harding -v- Wealands CA (Bailii, [2004] EWCA Civ 1735, Times 05-Jan-05, [2005] 1 WLR 1539)
    The claimant sought damages here for a road traffic accident which had occurred in Australia. The defendant was working in England. The defendant argued that the law of New South Wales applied.
    Held: The general rule in section 11 was not to . .
  • Cited – Harding -v- Wealands HL (Times 06-Jul-06, Bailii, [2006] UKHL 32, [2006] 3 WLR 83, [2006] 2 CLC 193, [2006] RTR 35, [2006] 4 All ER 1)
    The claimant had been a passenger in a car driven by his now partner. They had an accident in New South Wales. The car was insured in Australia. He sought leave to sue in England and Wales because Australian law would limit the damages.
    Held: . .

Cascina Tre Pini SS v Ministero Dell’Ambiente E Della Tutela Del Territorio E Del Mare And Others: ECJ 20 Jun 2013

References: C-301/12, [2013] EUECJ C-301/12, [2014] EUECJ C-301/12
Links: Bailii, Bailii
Coram: Kokottt AG
ECJ Opinion – Directive 92/43/EEC – Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora – Site of Community importance – Declassification – Property – Assessment on request – Hearing – Competent authorities
Statutes: Directive 92/43/EEC

Pharmacy Care Systems Limited v The Attorney General; 16 Aug 2004

References: [2004] NZCA 187
Links: NZLII
Coram: McGrath J, Hammond J, O’Regan J
(Court of Appeal of New Zealand) The claimant had settled a dispute with a Health Authority which alleged it had overclaimed for pharmacy supplies. It now claimed that the settlement should be set aside as having been entered into under duress.
This case cites:

  • Cited – Heffer and Another -v- Tiffin Green (A Firm) CA (Times 28-Dec-98)
    The plaintiff had sued the defendant accountants for negligently understating their business profits by inflating the figure for creditors. As a result, further tax had to be paid. The plaintiffs claimed the penalties and interest on tax paid . .
  • Cited – Kapur -v- J W Francis and Co CA (Bailii, [1999] EWCA Civ 1430)
    Notwithstanding a finding by a High Court Judge that Mr Kapur ‘had shaded the truth’, and ‘lacked frankness in his evidence’, the Court set aside a credibility finding on the basis that not only was there a lack of reasoning as to why the Judge . .

The Barnsley Canal Company v Twibell; 17 Nov 1843

References: [1843] EngR 1096, (1843) 7 Beav 19, (1843) 49 ER 969
Links: Commonlii
A canal company was authorised by, its Act, to purchase the coal, which the safety of the canal required to be left unworked. The purchase of part was delayed many years, and in the meantime a lease had been granted by the owner to a coal worker. The company purchased the interest of the owner. Held, that the coal worker was also entitled to compensation.
No equity can be founded on an allegation that a Court legally constituted is not properly competent to decide questions within its jurisrdiction; and where the legislature has given jurisdiction to a Court provided by the Act, and has made its decision final, if any inconvenience arises from the legal exercise of the jurisdiction, the Legislature alone can supply a remedy.

The Queen v The Inhabitants of Barnsley; 12 May 1849

References: [1849] EngR 628, (1849) 12 QB 193, (1849) 116 ER 840
Links: Commonlii
It is not necessary that a lunatic, chargeable to a parish, should be sent to an asylum or licensed house. The justice before whom he is brought is to decide whether he is a proper person to he confined or not; and, if not corifined, he may Be removed to his parish as an ordinary pauper. An idiot, aged thirty, living with his parents in parish B., became chargeable; and thereupon he and they were removed by order of justices to parish T., their place of settlement. The order was never appealed against. The father retained his house in B, in the care of two of his children, who were emancipated; and, when removed, he intended to return as soon as he could. After four days, the paupers did return to the house in B, with the consent of the overseers of T, who promised to send weekly relief to the parents for the son : but the son again became chargeable to B; and another order was made, finding the son and parents chargeable, and ordering their removal to T. The famiIy had resided in B. for five years next before the makirig of this order, excepting only the four days above mentioned. On appeal (not stating as a ground that the parents were not chargeable at the date of the second order), and case stated by the sessions : Held that the five years’ residence was broken by the removal to parish T., arid that the paupers were not irremoveable from B. under stat. 9 & 10 Vict. c. 66, s. I.

El Greco (Australia) Pty Ltd v Mediterranean Shipping Co SA; 10 Aug 2004

References: [2004] FCAFC 202, [2004] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 537
Links: Austilii
Coram: Black, Beaumont, Allsop JJ
(Federal Court of Australia) ADMIRALTY AND MARITIME LAW – carriage of goods by sea – Hague-Visby Rules – Australian COGSA Art 3 Rules 3, 4 and 8 – method for assessing value of cargo – where no ‘commodity exchange price’ or ‘current market price’ – where ‘normal value’ of goods at destination not determined. ADMIRALTY AND MARITIME LAW – limitation of liability – bill of lading – how to treat posters and prints enumerated as ‘pieces’ – whether an enumeration of packages or units – whether contractual limitation applies. STATUTORY INTERPRETATION – construction of Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1991 (Cth), Art 4 Rule 5(c) – meaning of ‘enumeration of packages or units’ – meaning of ‘as packed’.
This case is cited by:

Domican v The Queen; HCA 1992

References: (1992) 173 CLR 555
Coram: Mason CJ, Deane, Dawson, Toohey, Gaudron and McHugh JJ
(Australia) Mason CJ said: ‘A trial judge is not absolved from his or her duty to give general and specific warnings concerning the danger of convicting on identification evidence because there is other evidence, which, if accepted, is sufficient to convict the accused. See R v Bartels (1986) 44 SASR [260] at pp 270-271; cf R v Goode [1970] SASR 69, at p 77. The judge must direct the jury on the assumption that they may decide to convict solely on the basis of the identification evidence. If a trial judge has failed to give an adequate warning concerning identification, a new trial will ordinarily be ordered even when other evidence makes a very strong case against the accused. See R v Gaunt [1964] NSWR 864, at p 867. Of course, the other evidence in the case may be so compelling that a court of criminal appeal will conclude that the jury must have convicted on that evidence independently of the identification evidence. In such a case, the inadequacy of or lack of a warning concerning the identification evidence, although amounting to legal error, will not constitute a miscarriage of justice. But unless the Court of Criminal Appeal concludes that the jury must inevitably have convicted the accused independently of the identification evidence, the inadequacy of or lack of a warning concerning that evidence constitutes a miscarriage of justice even though the other evidence made a strong case against the accused.’
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Queen -v- Beckford and Another PC (Times 30-Jun-93, (1993) 97 Cr App R 409)
    The court rehearsed the Australian cases on the dangers of relying upon identification evidence, the need for proper jury directions, and the dangers of a court of appeal maintaining a conviction where an inadequate direction had been given relying . .
  • Cited – Shand -v- The Queen PC (Times 29-Nov-95, [1996] 1 WLR 67, Bailii, [1995] UKPC 46)
    (Jamaica) The case for the defence was that the identification witnesses were deliberately lying and it was not suggested that they were mistaken, so that the sole line of defence was fabrication. The identification evidence was exceptionally good . .

Uprichard and others v Fife Council and St Andrews Bay Developments Ltd for Judicial Review andC: SCS 31 Mar 2000

References: [2000] ScotCS 90, [2001] Env LR 122, 2000 SCLR 949
Links: Bailii, ScotC
Coram: Lord Bonomy
Six petitioners sought to challenge the grant of planning permission by the responders allowing a commercial hotel development in St Andrews, which, they said, would adversely affect the landscape and otherwise.

Gladwell v Steggall; 19 Jun 1839

References: 8 Scott 60, [1839] EngR 834, (1839) 5 Bing NC 733, (1839) 132 ER 1283
Links: Commonlii
The plaintiff was a girl of ten years of age claimed she had been negligently treated by the defendant surgeon and apothecary. She sued in an action ex delicto, alleging a breach of the contract under which they had been employed, though it was her father who had paid the bill.
A declaration in case stated that Plaintiff, an infant, had employed Defendant, a surgeon, to cure her, and then claimed damages for a misfeasance: Plea, that Plaintiff did not employ Defendant : Held, that it was immaterial by whom Defendant was employed ; or that, if material, Plaintiff’s submitting to Defendant’s treatment was sufficient proof of the allegation of employment by her.
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd -v- Heller & Partners Ltd HL ([1964] AC 465, [1963] 2 All ER 575, UBC, Bailii, [1963] UKHL 4, [1963] 1 Lloyds Rep 485, [1963] 3 WLR 101)
    The appellants were advertising agents. They were liable themselves for advertising space taken for a client, and had sought a financial reference from the defendant bankers to the client. The reference was negligent, but the bankers denied any . .

The West Cornwall Railway Company v Mowatt; 4 Jun 1850

References: [1850] EngR 623, (1850) 15 QB 521, (1850) 117 ER 556
Links: Commonlii
Debt for calls on railway shares : plea, that defendant was not shareholder : issue thereon. A special verdict found that, by agreement of 21st July 1847, between the directors of the railway company and defendant, he agreed to take all the unappropriated shares in the compariy, being 4935, and to pay 4l. per share on 15th August then next, and, meanwhile, to deposit securities to the amount of 20,000l. ; and the company agreed that, ‘so soon as 15l. per share shall have been paid on the 4935 shares, and that the company is in a position legally to do so, they shall deliver’ to defendant mortgage debentures of the company payable three years after date, and bearing 5 per cent. interest, for 24,675l, being at the rate of 5l. per share. At a meeting of the shareholders, on 10th August 1847, convened for the purpose, the agreement was confirmed by the shareholders, and the shares were registered to defendant with his consent. The call, on which the action was brought, was made in December 1847. Held, that the production of the register made a prima facie case that defendant was a shareholder, which case was not rebutted by any thing in the other evidence; that, even if the stipulation to deliver mortgage debentures in consideration of the shares taken were illegal, this would be no defence, as the action was not on the agreement, and the agreement had been, in part, executed by the transfer of the shares, which transfer took effect in praesenti. But that the stipulation to deliver such debentures, as soon as the company should be in a position legally to do so, was not illegal.

Radio 2UE Sydney Pty Ltd v Chesterton; 17 Apr 2008

References: [2008] NSWCA 66
Links: Austlii
Coram: Spigelman CJ Hodgson JA McColl JA
Austlii (Supreme Court of New South Wales – Court of Appeal) DEFAMATION – nature of- actual disparagement of the plaintiff’s reputation – reputation includes general character and standing and trade, business or professional reputation – DEFAMATION – what is defamatory – requires publication likely to cause ordinary decent folk in the community, taken in general, to think the less of plaintiff – DEFAMATION – nature of injury to business reputation – whether to be determined by reference to whether publication likely to cause ordinary decent folk in the community, taken in general, to think the less of plaintiff – JURY – directions to jury as to standards by which to determine whether an imputation injures plaintiff’s trade, business or professional reputation
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Dee -v- Telegraph Media Group Ltd QBD (Bailii, [2010] EWHC 924 (QB))
    The newspaper sought summary judgment in its defence of the defamation claim. The article labelled the claimant as the world’s worst professional tennis player. The paper said he had no prospect of succeeding once the second article in the same . .

Commission v Spain: ECJ 8 Sep 2005

References: C-121/03
ECJ Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directives 75/442/EEC and 91/156/EEC – Meaning of ‘waste’ – Directives 85/337/EEC and 97/11/EC – Assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment – Directive 80/68/EEC – Protection of groundwater against pollution caused by certain dangerous substances – Directive 80/778/EEC – Quality of water intended for human consumption.

Burnie Port Authority v General Jones Property Ltd; HCA 1994

References: [1994] 120 ALR 42, (1994) 179 CLR 520
Coram: Mason CJ
(High Court of Australia) The court treated the rule in Rylands v Fletcher as absorbed by the principles of ordinary negligence. The majority were influenced by the difficulties of interpretation and application to which the rule had given rise, the progressive weakening of the rule by judicial decision, by recognition that the law of negligence had been very greatly developed and expanded since Rylands v Fletcher was decided and by a belief that most claimants entitled to succeed under the rule would succeed in a claim for negligence anyway: ‘Where a duty of care arises under the ordinary law of negligence, the standard of care exacted is that which is reasonable in the circumstances. It has been emphasised in many cases that the degree of care under that standard necessarily varies with the risk involved and that the risk involved includes both the magnitude of the risk of an accident happening and the seriousness of the potential damage if an accident should occur . . even where a dangerous substance or dangerous activity of a kind which might attract the rule in Rylands v Fletcher is involved, the standard of care remains ‘that which is reasonable in the circumstances, that which a reasonably prudent man would exercise in the circumstances’: Adelaide Chemical & Fertiliser Co Ltd v Carlyle [1940] 64CLR514 at page 523. In the case of such substances or activities, however, a reasonably prudent person would exercise a higher degree of care. Indeed, depending upon the magnitude of the danger, the standard of ‘reasonable care’ may involve ‘a degree of diligence so stringent as to amount practically to a guarantee of safety”
This case cites:

  • Explained – Rylands -v- Fletcher HL ((1868) LR 3 HL 330, Bailii, [1868] UKHL 1)
    The defendant had constructed a reservoir to supply water to his mill. Water escaped into nearby disused mineshafts, and in turn flooded the plaintiff’s mine. The defendant appealed a finding that he was liable in damages.
    Held: The defendant . .

This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Transco plc -v- Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council HL (House of Lords, [2003] UKHL 61, Bailii, Times 20-Nov-03, [2004] 1 ALL ER 589, 91 Con LR 28, [2004] 2 AC 1, [2004] Env LR 24, [2004] 1 P & CR DG12, [2003] 3 WLR 1467, [2003] 48 EGCS 127, [2003] NPC 143)
    The claimant laid a large gas main through an embankment. A large water supply pipe nearby broke, and very substantial volumes of water escaped, causing the embankment to slip, and the gas main to fracture.
    Held: The rule in Rylands v Fletcher . .
  • Cited – LMS International Ltd and others -v- Styrene Packaging and Insulation Ltd and others TCC (Bailii, [2005] EWHC 2065 (TCC))
    The claimants sought damages after their premises were destroyed when a fire started in the defendants neighbouring premises which contained substantial volumes of styrofoam. They alleged this was an unnatural use of the land.
    Held: To . .
  • Cited – Stannard (T/A Wyvern Tyres) -v- Gore CA (Bailii, [2012] EWCA Civ 1248, [2013] Env LR 10, [2012] WLR(D) 266, [2012] 42 EG 133, [2013] 1 All ER 694)
    The defendant, now appellant, ran a business involving the storage of tyres. The claimant neighbour’s own business next door was severely damaged in a fire of the tyres escaping onto his property. The court had found him liable in strict liability . .

Miranda v Arizona; 10 Oct 1966

References: (1966) 384 US 436, [1966] USSC 143, (1966) 86 SCt 1602, (1966) 16 LEd2d 694
Links: Worldlii
Coram: Warren CJ
(United States Supreme Court) The prosecution may not use statements, whether incriminatory or exculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of a defendant unless it demonstrated the use of procedural safeguards which were sufficient to secure the privilege against self-incrimination. These safeguards require that, unless other fully effective means are devised to inform the accused person of the right to silence and to assure continuous opportunity to exercise it, he must be warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement that he does make may be used as evidence against him, that he has the right to consult with an attorney and that, if he cannot afford one, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him. ‘Custodial interrogation’ for the purposes of this rule means questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Imbrioscia -v- Switzerland ECHR (Bailii, [1993] ECHR 56, 13972/88, ECHR, (1994) 17 EHRR 441, Bailii)
    The applicant had been questioned several times without access to a lawyer while he was in police custody.
    Held: Overall there had been no breach of article 6(1). The right set out in article 6(3)(c) is one element, among others, of the . .
  • Cited – Galstyan -v- Armenia ECHR (26986/03, Bailii, [2007] ECHR 936, (2007) 50 EHRR 618)
    The claimant had been was arrested on his way home from a protest rally. He was made aware of his rights and expressly declined a lawyer.
    Held: As it was his own choice not to have a lawyer, the authorities could not be held responsible for . .
  • Cited – Ambrose -v- Harris, Procurator Fiscal, Oban, etc SC (Bailii, [2011] UKSC 43, Bailii Summary, SC Summary, SC, UKSC 2011/0101, 2011 SLT 1005, [2011] 1 WLR 2435)
    (Scotland) The appellant had variously been convicted in reliance on evidence gathered at different stages before arrest, but in each case without being informed of any right to see a solicitor. The court was asked, as a devolution issue, at what . .
  • Cited – Murray -v- The United Kingdom ECHR (Times 09-Feb-96, 18731/91, [1996] ECHR 3, (1996) 23 EHRR 313, [1996] 22 EHRR 29, Bailii)
    The applicant had been denied legal advice for 48 hours after he had been taken into custody.
    Held: There had been a violation of article 6(1) read with article 6(3)(c). However, it was not a breach of human rights to draw inferences from the . .
  • Considered – JDB -v- North Carolina (USSC, LII, 09-11121)
    (United States Supreme Court) The court considered the applicability of Miranda protection to a police interview of a minor. . .
  • Cited – McGowan (Procurator Fiscal) -v- B SC (Bailii Summary, Bailii, [2011] UKSC 54, SC, SC Summary, UKSC 2011/0201, [2011] 1 WLR 3121, 2012 SLT 37, 2012 SCCR 109, 2012 SCL 85)
    The appellant complained that after arrest, though he had been advised of his right to legal advice, and had declined the offer, it was still wrong to have his subsequent interview relied upon at his trial.
    Held: It was not incompatible with . .

Filliter v Phippard; 9 Dec 1847

References: [1847] EngR 999, (1847) 11 QB 347, (1847) 116 ER 506
Links: Commonlii
Coram: Lord Denman CJ
Lord Denman CJ considered a 1707 Act restricting liability for fire damage: ‘The Act contemplates the probability of fires in cities and towns arising from three causes, the want of water, the imperfection of party walls, and the negligence of servants. The Act provided some means for supplying these material defects: but the third section was directed against the moral one, the carelessness or negligence of servants, which (it observes) often causes fires: and it imposes on the servant by whose negligence the fire may have been occasioned a fine of 100l., to be distributed among the sufferers at the discretion of the churchwardens, or imprisonment for eighteen months in case of nonpayment. . . The most usual cause of fires was assumed to be the negligence of servants: and the enactment might operate to induce habits of caution in that important class. The same statute, in the sixth section, enacts that, after a day named, no action shall be maintained against any person in whose house or chamber any fire shall accidentally begin, nor shall any recompence be made by such person for any damage suffered or occasioned thereby.’
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Stannard (T/A Wyvern Tyres) -v- Gore CA (Bailii, [2012] EWCA Civ 1248, [2013] Env LR 10, [2012] WLR(D) 266, [2012] 42 EG 133, [2013] 1 All ER 694)
    The defendant, now appellant, ran a business involving the storage of tyres. The claimant neighbour’s own business next door was severely damaged in a fire of the tyres escaping onto his property. The court had found him liable in strict liability . .
  • Cited – Musgrove -v- Pandelis CA ([1919] 2 KB 43)
    The plaintiff ((M) rented first floor rooms above the defendant’s garage. The defendant’s employee spilt petrol which was lit, and negligently failed to control it causing a fire, damaging the plaintiff’s rooms.
    Held: The Act did not provide a . .

Phillips v Viscount Canterbury; 27 May 1843

References: [1843] EngR 704, (1843) 11 M & W 619, (1843) 152 ER 953
Links: Commonlii
A sheriff who has seized goods under a fi fa, and disposed of them by appraisement and bill of sale, is not entitled to deduct the expenses of the appraisement and sale ; the scale of fees framed under 7 Will. 4 & 1 Vict. c. 55, applying to ‘sales by auction’ only.

Aldridge v The Great Western Railway Company; 19 Nov 1841

References: , [1841] EngR 1095, (1841) 3 Man & G 515, (1841) 133 ER 1246
Links: Commonlii
Case against a railway company for so carelessly and improperly managing and directing an engine on their railway by their servants, that sparks flew from the engine upon a stack of beans standing in an adjoining field, belonging to the plaintiff, whereby the stack was destroyed. A case stated for the opinion of the court, under the statute, alleged that the engines used upon the railway were such as were usually employed on railways, for the purpose of propelling the trains and carriages thereon ; and that the engine, from which the sparks that set fire to the stack in question flew, was used at the time in the ordinary manner, and for purposes authorised by the act of parliament incorporating the company.-Held,that the facts stated were not sufficient to enable the court to infer negligence on the part of the defendants, so as to justify the directing of the entry of a verdict for the plaintiff; but that they did not shew such an absence of negligence as to warrant the directing of the entry of a nonsuit ; and the special case was withdrawn in order that the parties might go on to trial.
Tindal CJ said: ‘It is contended on the part of the defendants, that the plaintiff should be nonsuited; but I am not prepared to say that the fact of the engine emitting sparks may not amount to negligence. On the other hand I cannot say that a verdict ought to be entered for the plaintiff. I think that the special case should be withdrawn, and that the parties should go on to trial. To entitle the plaintiff to recover, he must either shew some carelessness by the defendants, or lay facts before the jury from which it may be inferred.’
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Stannard (T/A Wyvern Tyres) -v- Gore CA (Bailii, [2012] EWCA Civ 1248, [2013] Env LR 10, [2012] WLR(D) 266, [2012] 42 EG 133, [2013] 1 All ER 694)
    The defendant, now appellant, ran a business involving the storage of tyres. The claimant neighbour’s own business next door was severely damaged in a fire of the tyres escaping onto his property. The court had found him liable in strict liability . .

Richards v Easto; 21 Feb 1846

References: [1846] EngR 436, (1846) 15 M & W 244, (1846) 153 ER 840
Links: Commonlii
Section 86 of the 1774 Act applies to the whole country.
Statutes: Fires Prevention Metropolis Act 1774
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Stannard (T/A Wyvern Tyres) -v- Gore CA (Bailii, [2012] EWCA Civ 1248, [2013] Env LR 10, [2012] WLR(D) 266, [2012] 42 EG 133, [2013] 1 All ER 694)
    The defendant, now appellant, ran a business involving the storage of tyres. The claimant neighbour’s own business next door was severely damaged in a fire of the tyres escaping onto his property. The court had found him liable in strict liability . .

Viscount Canterbury v The Attorney-General; 11 Feb 1843

References: [1843] EngR 359, (1842-1843) 1 Ph 306, (1843) 41 ER 648
Links: Commonlii
Whether the protection given by the statutes 6 Ann. c. 31, and 14 G 3, c, 78, toa party in whose house or on whose estate ‘a fire shall accidentally begin’ extends to fires occasioned by the negligence of the owner or his servants, or, whether it is confined to fires arising from pure accident in the limited sense of the word.
Qaere?
A petition of right does not lie to recover compensation from the Crown for damage to the property of an individual, occasioned by the negligence of the servants of the Crown.
The reigning Sovereign is not liable to make compesation for damage to the property of an individual occasioned by the negligence of the servants of the Crown in a preceding reign ; nor, semble, even where such damage has been done in his own reign.
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Stannard (T/A Wyvern Tyres) -v- Gore CA (Bailii, [2012] EWCA Civ 1248, [2013] Env LR 10, [2012] WLR(D) 266, [2012] 42 EG 133, [2013] 1 All ER 694)
    The defendant, now appellant, ran a business involving the storage of tyres. The claimant neighbour’s own business next door was severely damaged in a fire of the tyres escaping onto his property. The court had found him liable in strict liability . .

Vaughan v The Taff Vale Railway Company; 20 Nov 1858

References: [1858] EngR 1160, (1858) 3 H & N 743, (1858) 157 ER 667
Links: Commonlii
A wood adjoining the defendants’ railway was burnt by sparks from the locomotives. On several previous occasions it had been set on fire, and the Company had paid for the damage. Evidence was given that the defendants had done everything that was practicable to the locomotives to make them safe, but it was admitted that even with these precautions the locomotives had been the means of occasionally setting fire to the wood. The banks of the railway were covered with inflammable grass. The jury found the Company guilty of negligence.
Held: First, that, assuming the fire to have been caused by lighted coals from the locomotives falling in the plaintiff’s wood, the defendants were liable. Secondly, that they were not excused by the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act, 8 & 9 Vict c. 20, s. 86 – Thirdly, that if the fire broke out on the defendants’ land and was communicated to the wood from the banks of thc railway, there was evidence to justify the verdict, and that the defendants were not protected by the 14 Geo 3, c 78, s. 84 -Fourthly, that it was no defence that the plaintiff had allowed his wood to become peculiarly liable to take fire by neglecting to clear away the dry grass and dead sticks.
This case is cited by:

  • Appeal from – Vaughan -v- The Taff Vale Railway Company ([1860] EngR 749, Commonlii, (1860) 5 H & N 679, (1860) 157 ER 1351)
    A railway Company, authorized by the legislature to use locomotive engines, is not responsible for damage from fire occasioned by sparks emitted from an engine travelling on their railway, provided they have taken every precaution in their power and . .
  • Cited – Smith -v- The London and South Western Railway Company ((1869-70) LR 5 CP 98)
    Workmen, employed by the defendant railway company to cut the grass and trim hedges bordering the railway, placed the trimmings in heaps near the line, and allowed them to remain there for fourteen days, during very hot weather in the month of . .
  • Cited – Smith -v- The London and South Western Railway Company ((1870-71) LR 6 CP 14,)
    Blackburn J said: ‘I take it that, since the case of Vaughan v Taff Vale Ry Co, which was expressly affirmed in Brand v Hammersmith Ry Co, it is clear that when a railway company is authorized by their Act of parliament to run engines on their line, . .
  • Cited – Stannard (T/A Wyvern Tyres) -v- Gore CA (Bailii, [2012] EWCA Civ 1248, [2013] Env LR 10, [2012] WLR(D) 266, [2012] 42 EG 133, [2013] 1 All ER 694)
    The defendant, now appellant, ran a business involving the storage of tyres. The claimant neighbour’s own business next door was severely damaged in a fire of the tyres escaping onto his property. The court had found him liable in strict liability . .

The ‘Ferdinand Retzlaff’: 1971

References: [1972] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 120
Coram: Brandon J
The plaintiff shipowners claimed damages for detention following a collision with the defendants’ ship. There was an issue as to how long the ship repairs would have taken if they had been done at Bremen. The defendants adduced evidence on this point in the form of an exchange of letters.
Held: In considering what weight to give to the letters under section 6(3) of the Civil Evidence Act 1968, the court identified relevant circumstances, and said also that it was necessary to take account of the fact that the evidence was unsworn and could not be tested by cross-examination. This was particularly important where the evidence related to hypothetical rather than actual facts.
Brandon J said: ‘My view is quite simply that matters of this importance, in a case of this kind, should be proved by oral evidence, and that letters obtained at the time and in the way that these were obtained should have little weight attached to them. I cannot think that the Civil Evidence Act 1968, was intended, in general, to change the long established system by which seriously disputed central issues in civil cases are tried on oral evidence, given on oath and capable of being tested by cross-examination, and to substitute for it a system of trial on unsworn documents brought into existence by parties to the proceeding post litem mortam, and I do not think the Act should be used, or rather abused, so as to produce such a result.’
Statutes: Civil Evidence Act 1968 6(3)
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Welsh -v- Stokes and Another CA (Bailii, [2007] EWCA Civ 796, [2008] 1 All ER 921, [2008] 1 WLR 1224, [2007] PIQR P27, (2007) 151 SJLB 1020, [2007] PIQR P27)
    The claimant sued a riding stables after she was badly injured on being thrown from the horse provided. Her claim in negligence failed, but she succeeded under strict liabiilty under the 1971 Act, after the judge relied upon hearsay evidence.

Bolton v O’Brien; 11 Jan 1885

References: (1885) QB Div vol XVI LR Ir 97
Coram: May CJ, O’Brien J
Ratio On a motion for a new trial in a claim in defamation, a majority of the court held that passages in the same newspaper which were not complained of might be adduced in evidence to illustrate the meaning of the passages complained of. At the trial, both counsel had read and commented on the various passages without objection.
May CJ said: ‘I have reason to think that Mr. Justice O’Brien entertains doubts as to the legal propriety of adducing in evidence other passages in the same newspaper in order to illustrate the meaning of the passages charged to be libellous. I cannot say that I concur in those doubts. If the language be ambiguous as to the nature of the felony imputed in this particular passage, it appears to me that other passages in the same newspaper, by the same person, dealing with these matters are properly admissible in order to remove such ambiguity.’
Ratio O’Brien J dissented, saying that such passages other than those complained of were not evidence to affect the defamatory sense unless ‘directly referred to, and in that way virtually made part of the libel.’
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Dee -v- Telegraph Media Group Ltd QBD (Bailii, [2010] EWHC 924 (QB))
    The newspaper sought summary judgment in its defence of the defamation claim. The article labelled the claimant as the world’s worst professional tennis player. The paper said he had no prospect of succeeding once the second article in the same . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 20-Apr-16
Ref: 408770

Worldwide Corporation Limited v Marconi Communications Limited (Formerly GPT Limited) and GPT (Middle East) Limited; 22 Jun 1999

References: [1999] EWCA Civ 1650
Links: Bailii
Coram: Waller, Mance LJJ
Application for leave to appeal. Original leading counsel had consented to the abandonment of parts of the claim. New leading counsel now sought to revive them.
Held: The claim had little prospect of success. Leave to appeal refused.
This case cites:

  • Cited – Arthur J S Hall & Co (A Firm) -v- Simons etc CA (Times 18-Dec-98, Bailii, Bailii, [1998] EWCA Civ 1943, [1999] 3 WLR 873, Bailii, [1998] EWCA Civ 3539, [1999] 1 FLR 536, [1999] PNLR 374, [1999] 2 FCR 193, [1998] NPC 162, [1999] Fam Law 215, [1999] Lloyd’s Rep PN 47)
    The court considered the limits on liability for professional negligence for lawyers in conduct associated with litigation, but outside the courtroom.
    Held: Though the court must balance the need for protection against negligence by lawyers . .
  • Cited – Sayle -v- Cooksey ([1969] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 618)
    The court questioned whether the availability of an alternate remedy for a party against his solicitors should affect the decision to strike out a plaintiff’s claim. . .
  • Cited – Birkett -v- James HL ([1978] AC 297, [1977] 2 All ER 801, [1977] 3 WLR 38)
    The court has an inherent power to strike out an action for want of prosecution, and the House set down the conditions for its exercise. The power is discretionary and exercisable only where (a) there has been inordinate and inexcusable delay and . .
  • Cited – Hytec Information Systems Limited -v- Council of City of Coventry CA (Times 31-Dec-96, Bailii, [1996] EWCA Civ 1099, [1997] 1 WLR 1666)
    The Court directed that unless particulars were served by a specified date the defendant’s claim should be struck out. The defendant served some particulars but it was decided that the defendant had deliberately flouted the unless order and its . .

Fox Hayes v Financial Services Authority; UTTC 30 Mar 2010

References: [2010] UKUT B15 (FS)
Links: Bailii
Coram: Sir Stephen Oliver QC
UTTC PENALTY – Authorised Person – Partnership – Decision Notice imposing penalty issued after termination of Partnership – whether regulatory authority has power to impose penalty on dissolved partnership – whether partners are personally liable – who rank as partners in dissolved partnership – FSMA 2000 32(1), 40(1(c) and 206(1).
Statutes: Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 32(1) 40(1)(c) 206(1)

National Coal Board v Thorne; 2 Jan 1976

References: [1976] 1 WLR 543
Coram: Watkins J
Complaint was made as to the failure to repair a property, and the duty to abate the resulting nuisance. Watkins J said: ‘Speaking for myself I would adopt the words of Lord Wilberforce so as to state that a nuisance cannot arise if what has taken place affects only the person or persons occupying the premises where the nuisance is said to have taken place. A nuisance coming within the meaning of the Public Health Act 1976 must be either private or public nuisance as understood by common law.’
Statutes: Public Health Act 1936
This case cites:

  • Cited – Salford City Council -v- McNally HL ([1976] AC 379)
    The House considered the interaction of the 1936 and 1957 Acts as to the distinction between the questions of injury to health and fitness for human habitation: ‘It was not a defence to establish that the house, the subject of the complaint, was . .

This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Cunningham -v- Birmingham City Council Admn (Times 09-Jun-97, Bailii, [1997] EWHC Admin 440)
    The council appealed against the finding that the complainant’s premises occupied under a tenancy of the council, constituted a statutory nuisance which they had a duty to abate. The claimant’s son was disabled and his condition involved behavioural . .

Spencer v Customs and Excise; Excs 16 Aug 2004

References: [2004] UKVAT-Excise E00777
Links: Bailii
Excs RESTORATION – worked in Paris installing electronic tills for Marks & Spencer’s – on returning home decided to buy gifts for workforce – purchased 30 kg hand rolling tobacco; 3,456 cigarettes; 69.76 litres of beer; 46.75 litres of wine and 12 litres of cider – refusal to restore the excise goods and vehicle unreasonable – appeal allowed

West London Pipeline and Storage Ltd and Another v Total UK Ltd and others; Comc 22 Jul 2008

References: [2008] EWHC 1729 (Comm), [2008] 2 CLC 258,
Links: Bailii
Coram: Beatson J
The court was asked whether it could go behind an affidavit sworn by a person claiming litigation privilege, and, if so, in what circumstances and by what means.
Held: The burden of proof is on the party claiming privilege to establish it; An assertion of privilege and a statement of the purpose of the communication over which privilege is claimed in an affidavit are not determinative and are evidence of a fact which may require to be independently proved; it is difficult to go behind an affidavit of documents at an interlocutory stage of proceedings. Where the court is not satisfied on the basis of the affidavit and the other evidence before it that the right to withhold inspection is established, there are four options open to it: 1) It may conclude that the evidence does not establish a legal right to withhold inspection and order inspection; It may order a further affidavit to deal with matters which the earlier affidavit does not cover or on which it is unsatisfactory; It may inspect the documents; At an interlocutory stage a court may, in certain circumstances, order cross-examination of a person who has sworn an affidavit, for example, an affidavit sworn as a result of the order of the court that a defendant to a freezing injunction should disclose his assets.
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Property Alliance Group Ltd -v- The Royal Bank of Scotland Plc ChD (Bailii, [2015] EWHC 321 (Ch))
    The claimant said that interest rate manipulation by the defendant bank had caused it losses in interest rate derivatives and SWAP agreements. In the course of that the claimants sought disclosure of internal documents. The defendants resisted . .

(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 11-Feb-16 Ref: 271151

Judgment of Death As Pronounced On Earl Ferrers By The Lord High Steward (Lord Henley); 18 Apr 1670

References: [1670] EngR 33, (1670) 2 Eden 384, (1670) 28 ER 947
Links: Commonlii
Laurence, Lord Ferrers, His Majesty, from his royal and equal regard to justice, and his steady attention to our constitution (which hath endeared him in a wonderful manner to the universal duty and affection of his subjects) hath commanded this inquiry to be made, upon the blood of a very ordinary subject, against your Lordship a peer of this realm. Your Lordship hath been arraigned; hath pleaded and put yourself on your peers, and they (whose judicature is founded and subsists in wisdom, honor and justice) have unanimously found your Lordship guilty of the felony and murder charged in the indictment.
It is usual, my Lord, for courts of justice before they pronounce the dreadful sentence ordained by the law, to open to the prisoner the nature of the crime of which he is convicted ; not in order to aggravate or afflict, but to awaken the mind to a due attention to, and consideration of the unhappy situation into which he hath brought himself.
My Lord, the crime of which your Lordship is found guilty, murder, is incapable of aggravation; and it is impossible but that during your Lordship’s long confinement, you must have reflected upon it, represented to your mind in its deepest shades, and with all its train of dismal and detestable consequences.
As your Lordship hath received no benefit, so you can derive no consolation from that refuge you seemed almost ashamed to take under a pretended insanity ; since it hath appeared to us all, from your cross examination of the King’s witnesses, that you recollected the minutest circumstances of facts and conversations to which you and the witnesses only could be privy, with the exactness of a memory more than ordinarily sound : it is therefore as unnecessary as it would be painful to me, to dwell longer on a subject so black and dreadful.
It is with much more satisfaction that I can remind your Lordship, that though
from the present tribunal before which you now stand, you can receive nothing but strict and equal justice ; yet, you are soon to appear before an Almighty Judge, whose unfathomable wisdom is able, by means incomprehensible to our narrow capacities, to reconcile justice with mercy.

TNT UK Ltd v HMRC; UTTC 7 Feb 2012

References: [2012] UKUT 49 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
Coram: Bishopp J
UTTC CUSTOMS DUTIES – post-clearance demand – goods imported using simplified inward processing relief system – appellant acting as importer’s, or purported importer’s, agent – import declarations submitted by appellant incorrect by reason of importer providing false identity- no bills of discharge provided – Customs Code arts 5, 204 – whether appellant liable for payment of duty and VAT – yes – appeal dismissed

Powa (Jersey) Ltd v HMRC; UTTC 8 Feb 2012

References: [2012] UKUT 50 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
Coram: Roth J
UTTC VALUE ADDED TAX – input tax – MTIC and contra-trading – whether connection to fraudulent trading as condition of denial of right to deduct input tax requires privity of contract with fraudulent trader – test in Kittel and Recolta Recycling – whether English mistranslation of French text of the judgment – whether to refer question to ECJ – application of Court of Appeal judgment in Mobilx

Aberdeen Asset Management Plc v HMRC; UTTC 9 Dec 2011

References: [2012] UKUT 43 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
UTTC Income Tax; emoluments; tax avoidance scheme; transfer of shares; whether a payment -No; whether shares a readily convertible asset – Yes; Income & Corporation Taxes Act 1988 sections 1, 19, 131, 202A&B, 203, 203A, 203F, The Income Tax (Employments) Regulations 1993 Regulation 2- appeal dismissed
Statutes: Income Tax (Employments) Regulations 1993, Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988

Murphy and Horton v HMRC; UTTC 1 Feb 2012

References: [2012] UKUT 44 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
Coram: Roth J
UTTC EXCISE DUTY – sections 55 and 62 Alcohol Liquors Duties Act 1979, Cider and Perry Regulations 1989, Wine and Made-wine Regulations 1989 – whether a discontinuance within regulation 13(a) on a sale of a business as a going concern holding stock of cider and made-wine – position where premises are both cider premises and a winery but made-wine is held only for the purpose of the cider business – proviso to regulation 12: application for some other purpose.
Statutes: Alcohol Liquors Duties Act 1979 55 62, Wine and Made-wine Regulations 1989, Cider and Perry Regulations 1989

JD Wetherspoon v HMRC; UTTC 31 Jan 2012

References: [2012] UKUT 42 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
Coram: ColinBishopp Judge
UTTC Corporation tax – capital allowances – machinery or plant – conversion, fitting out and refurbishment of public houses – whether items of cost qualify for allowances under section 24 CAA 1990 or section 66 CAA 1990 (or both) – consideration of what amounts to alterations to an existing building incidental to the installation of machinery or plant – decision in principle on sample expenditure.

In re W; 15 Nov 1990

References: Times 15-Nov-1990
Where assets had been seized in criminal proceedings, the court had power to order a payment to creditors only where the value of the assets would not be reduced.
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – In re X (Restraint Order: Payment out) QBD (Times 03-Jun-04)
    A restraint order had been made in respect of the defendant’s assets pending trial. Application was made to release a sum to pay the defendant’s company debts.
    Held: A payment could be made only where the the realisable value of the property . .

Duckmanton v HM Revenue and Customs; UTTC 4 Jul 2013

References: [2013] UKUT 305 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
UTTC Income Tax – whether legal costs incurred by Appellant in defending criminal charges were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of his trade – ‘purpose’ and ‘effect’ of incurring expenditure distinguished – s 74 ICTA 1988 and s 34 ITTIOA 2005 – question answered in negative by First-tier Tribunal – no error of law in determination of the FTT – appeal dismissed.

Garland v HM Revenue and Customs; UTTC 13 Mar 2013

References: [2012] UKUT 471 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
NATIONAL INSURANCE – Class 3 Contributions – Non employed person – Entitlement to pay contributions in respect of period of employment in Kenya – NI (R&PA) regs 1948 r.5 – Council Regulations (EEC) No 1408/71 and (EC) No 883/2004 – held appeal dismissed
Statutes: Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, Council Regulation (EC) No 883/2004

First National City Bank v Banco Nacional de Cuba; 7 Jun 1972

References: (1972) 406 US 759, [1972] USSC 189, [1972] 92 SCt 1808
Links: Worldlii
(United States Supreme Court) The court worried about just how much confusion can result from executive encroachment on issues of justiciability and that executive interference would lead to arbitrary results as ‘the Court becomes a mere errand boy for the Executive Branch which may choose to pick some people’s chestnuts from the fire, but not others” (Douglas J). ‘I would be uncomfortable with a doctrine which would require the judiciary to receive the Executive’s permission before invoking its jurisdiction . Such a notion, in the name of the doctrine of separation of powers, seems to me to conflict with that very doctrine.’ (Powell J)
This case is cited by:

Ormes v Beadel; 7 Nov 1860

References: [1860] EngR 1096, (1860) 2 De G F & J 333, (1860) 45 ER 649
Links: Commonlii
Coram: Lord Campbell LC
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Watson -v- Sadiq and Another CA (Bailii, [2013] EWCA Civ 822)
    The appellant and defendant said that the agreement compromising their action, and embodied within a Tomlin schedule, had been reached by duress and was vitiated. He said that the Recorder had exercised undue influence in advising the need for a . .

Rodovasco Transportes E Terraplanagens v Revenue and Customs; Excs 31 Oct 2005

References: [2005] UKVAT-Excise E00925
Links: Bailii
Excs EXCISE – Restoration refusal – Overseas Haulier carrying beer with no evidence that duty paid and inadequate documentation – Appellant did not attend – Hearing in absence – No checks made by Appellant as to load – Excise duty £7,792 – Value of vehicle and trailer £10,700 – Refusal not disproportionate – Appeal dismissed

Regina v RC; 28 Oct 2005

References: [2005] 3 SCR 99, 2005 SCC 61
Links: Canlii
(Supreme Court of Canada) The court considered the retention of a juvenile first-time offender’s DNA sample on the national data bank. The court upheld the decision by a trial judge who had found, in the light of the principles and objects of youth criminal justice legislation, that the impact of the DNA retention would be grossly disproportionate. In his opinion, Fish J said: ‘Of more concern, however, is the impact of an order on an individual’s informational privacy interests. In R. v. Plant, [1993] 3 SCR 281, at p. 293, the Court found that s. 8 of the Charter protected the ‘biographical core of personal information which individuals in a free and democratic society would wish to maintain and control from dissemination to the state’. An individual’s DNA contains the ‘highest level of personal and private information’: S.A.B., at para. 48. Unlike a fingerprint, it is capable of revealing the most intimate details of a person’s biological makeup. . The taking and retention of a DNA sample is not a trivial matter and, absent a compelling public interest, would inherently constitute a grave intrusion on the subject’s right to personal and informational privacy.’
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Marper -v- United Kingdom; S -v- United Kingdom ECHR (30562/04, Bailii, [2008] ECHR 1581, Times, (2008) 158 NLJ 1755, (2009) 48 EHRR 50, 25 BHRC 557, [2009] Crim LR 355)
    (Grand Chamber hearing) The applicants complained that on being arrested on suspicion, samples of their DNA had been taken, but despite being released without charge, the samples had retained on the Police database.
    Held: (Unanimous) The . .

Regina (Jones) v Chief Constable of Cheshire Constabulary; 31 Oct 2005

References: Times 04-Nov-2005
The claimant challenged the revocation by the respondent of his pedlar’s licence. He had been arrested on a charge involving dishonesty, and his certificate was taken from him and held.
Held: The powers available were to the police to refuse to renew a certificate or to a magistrates court to revoke licence. The police did not have the power to do as they had. The declaration was granted.
Statutes: Pedlar’s Act 1871 5(1)