The defendant solicitors had each acted for banks in completing charges over property. They had given the standard agreed form of undertaking to secure a good and marketable title, and the banks now alleged that they were in breach because undisclosed covenants variously restricted future development of the land. Held: The standard solicitor’s undertaking to … Continue reading Barclays Bank Plc v Weeks Legg and Dean (a Firm); Barclays Bank Plc v Lougher and Others; Barclays Bank Plc v Hopkin John and Co: CA 21 May 1998
1267 – 1278 – 1285 – 1297 – 1361 – 1449 – 1491 – 1533 – 1677 – 1688 – 1689 – 1700 – 1706 – 1710 – 1730 – 1737 – 1738 – 1751 – 1774 – 1792 – 1793 – 1804 – 1814 – 1819 – 1824 – 1828 – 1831 – 1832 … Continue reading Acts
HL Income Tax – Transfer of assets-Absolute gifts to unmarried minor children – Finance Act, 1936 (26 Geo. V, and 1 Edw. VIII, c. 34), Section 21. Citations: [1953] UKHL TC – 34 – 178, 34 TC 178 Links: Bailii Statutes: Finance Act 1936 21 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Income Tax Updated: 28 June 2022; … Continue reading Thomas v Marshall (HM Inspector of Taxes); Marshall (HM Inspector of Taxes) v Thomas: HL 20 Apr 1953
Tenants occupied land next to land which was to be developed after compulsory acquisition. The tenants and the landlords asserted a right of light over the land, and sought an injunction to prevent the development. The developer denied that any right of light had been acquired. The sky contour diagrams projected that the reductions in … Continue reading Midtown Ltd v City of London Real Property Company Ltd: ChD 20 Jan 2005
The court reconsidered the law relating to penalty clauses in contracts. The first appeal, Cavendish Square Holding BV v Talal El Makdessi, raised the issue in relation to two clauses in a substantial commercial contract. The second appeal, ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis, raised the issue at a consumer level, with a separate issue under the … Continue reading Cavendish Square Holding Bv v Talal El Makdessi; ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis: SC 4 Nov 2015
HL Surtax – Undistributed income of company – Appeal against apportionments of income remitted by High Court to Special Commissioners for further consideration-Right of appeal against amended apportionments – Income apportioned to married woman – Whether assessable on husband – Finance Act, 1922 (12 and 13 Geo. V c. 17), Section 21 and First Schedule; … Continue reading Latilla v Inland Revenue (No 2) ;, Latilla Campbell v Inland Revenue, Mayo v Inland Revenue: HL 14 Dec 1950
Powergen sold a property to Edison. Powergen had paid rates under a separate statutory rating regime, and paid an additional thirteen million pounds under an apportionment. Edison later complained that in being rated itself, the authorities had collected rates twice for the same property. It challenged the legality of the order under which the rates … Continue reading Regina v Central Valuation Officer and another ex parte Edison First Power Limited: HL 10 Apr 2003
In Douglas, the claimants said that the defendants had interfered with their contract to provide exclusive photographs of their wedding to a competing magazine, by arranging for a third party to infiltrate and take and sell unauthorised photographs. In OBG, the defendants acted as receivers under an invalid charge, and were accused of unlawful interference … Continue reading Douglas and others v Hello! Ltd and others; similar: HL 2 May 2007
The plaintiffs had suceeded in variously establishing claims in deceit and negligence, but now appealed against the finding that no damages had flowed from the wrongs. They had been sold a business on the basis of incorrect figures. Held: Where a plaintiff has been induced to enter into a transaction by a misrepresentation, whether fraudulent … Continue reading Downs and Another v Chappell and Another: CA 3 Apr 1996
The company appealed against liability orders made against it for non-payment of domestic rates, saying that in each case it had not been the rateable occupier. The property had been subdivided and let to companies of which the appellant was a holding company. Held: The appeal was allowed. The property was a single heraditament. To … Continue reading Tallington Lakes Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Grantham Magistrates Court: Admn 25 Nov 2010
Air System plant excluded from Rating value The court was asked whether the services provided by a specialised air handling system, used in connection with refrigerated merchandise in the appellant’s retail store, are ‘manufacturing operations or trade processes’ for rating purposes. Held: Iceland’s appeal was allowed and the decision of the First Tier Tribunal restored. … Continue reading Iceland Foods Ltd v Berry (Valuation Officer): SC 7 Mar 2018
The company sought to recover damages from a director who had acted dishonestly, by concealing a financial interest in a different company which had made loans to the claimant company. He replied that the claim was out of time. At first instance the first defendant had been found dishonest through non-disclosure, and that section 21 … Continue reading DEG-Deutsche Investitions und Entwicklungsgesellschaft mbH v Koshy and Other (No 3); Gwembe Valley Development Co Ltd (in receivership) v Same (No 3): CA 28 Jul 2003
The taxpayer had successfully challenged the entry of his houseboat in the rating list at the Valuation Tribunal, but this had been re-instated at first instance. He said that the boat, as a registered seagoing vessel was not a houseboat, and that he occupied only a tidal fore and aft mooring protected by a pit. … Continue reading Reeves (Listing Officer) v Northrop: CA 17 Apr 2013
Appropriation was not in sufficient form The claimants had challenged an order supporting the decision of the Council to use their allotments for a new primary school, saying that the land had be appropriated as allotment land, and that therefore the consent of the minister was needed. Held: The appeal failed. The use of the … Continue reading Adamson, Regina (on The Application of) v Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council: CA 18 Feb 2020
The defendant ordered a meal at a restaurant believing his companion would lend him the money to pay. He later decided to seek to avoid payment and took a opportunity to escape.
Held: The appeal was allowed and the conviction restored. The . .
The parties had engaged in a bitter 95 day trial in which allegations of forgery, theft, false accounting, blackmail and arson. A company owning patents and other rights had become insolvent, and the real concern was the destination and ownership of . .
