Author: admin

Qualapharm Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 18 Sep 2015

Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Appeal – APPLICATION TO CLOSE ENQUIRY – interim application for disclosure of risks identified by HMRC which led them to open enquiry -application for stay pending intended judicial review proceedings over opening of enquiry – both applications refused – closure application withdrawn – proceedings dismissed
References: [2015] UKFTT 479 (TC)
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 15 October 2020; Ref: scu.556135

Just Beer Limited Gempost Limited v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 22 Sep 2015

Vat – Appeals : Applications Generally – APPEALS – procedure – directions – costs in transitional cases – whether
pre-2009 costs regime should apply – no – whether open to apply for appeals
to be allocated to Complex category – consideration of Appellants’
application for disclosure – refused – application by HMRC to re-amend Statement of case – additional ground proposed – consideration of factors – amendment agreed – other amendment to add first limb of Kittel test – amendment agreed – directions adjusted to take account of medical
treatment of Appellants’ director
References: [2015] UKFTT 481 (TC)
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 15 October 2020; Ref: scu.556134

Mrs W and East Dunbartonshire Council: SIC 12 Nov 2015

SIC Legal Correspondence – On 3 March 2014, Mrs W asked East Dunbartonshire Council (the Council) for correspondence between the Council and its external legal advisers in connection with the planning applications a specific development.
The Council withheld the information under the EIRs, as it considered it to be covered by legal professional privilege. Following an investigation, the Commissioner accepted this.
Although the Commissioner upheld the Council’s actions in relation to the outcome of the application and compliance with the EIRs, she has set out, apart from her decision, her observations about the Council’s handling of the initial request.
References: [2015] ScotIC 176 – 2015
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: Scotland

Last Update: 15 October 2020; Ref: scu.556112

Calder and Aberdeenshire Council: SIC 24 Nov 2015

SIC Peterhead Futures and Town Team Groups – On 20 February 2015, Mr Calder asked Aberdeenshire Council (the Council) for agendas and minutes of the Peterhead Futures Group and Peterhead Town Team Group, with related correspondence.
The Council responded following a request for review. It issued some information to Mr Calder, but withheld other information from him. Mr Calder remained dissatisfied with aspects of the handling of the request and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
The Commissioner investigated and found that the Council had responded to Mr Calder’s request for information in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA. However, she also made a recommendation to the Council about its practice of redacting information.
References: [2015] ScotIC 183 – 2015
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: Scotland

Last Update: 15 October 2020; Ref: scu.556109

Mr T and Scottish Prison Service: SIC 12 Nov 2015

SIC URLs Accessed By An Employee – On 22 July 2015, Mr T asked the Scottish Prison Service (the SPS) for URLs accessed by an employee between specified dates.
The SPS responded by stating it did not hold this information. Following a review, Mr T remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
The Commissioner investigated and found that the SPS did hold information falling within the scope of Mr T’s request. She required the SPS to consider Mr T’s requirement for review again, and communicate a fresh outcome to him.
References: [2015] ScotIC 178 – 2015
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: Scotland

Last Update: 15 October 2020; Ref: scu.556111

Maxima Latvija v Konkurences padome: ECJ 26 Nov 2015

ECJ Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Competition – Article 101(1) TFEU – Application of analogous national legislation – Jurisdiction of the Court – Concept of ‘agreement having as its object the restriction of competition’- Commercial lease agreements – Shopping centres – Right of the anchor tenant to prevent the lessor letting commercial premises to third parties
References: C-345/14, [2015] EUECJ C-345/14, ECLI:EU:C:2015:784, [2015] WLR(D) 483
Links: Bailii, WLRD
Judges: L Bay Larsen P
Statutes: TFEU 101(1)

Last Update: 15 October 2020; Ref: scu.556128

Administrador de Infraestructuras Ferroviarias v Aira Pascual And Others: ECJ 26 Nov 2015

ECJ Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Directive 2001/23/EC – Article 1(1) – Transfers of undertakings – Safeguarding of employees’ rights – Obligation on the transferee to take on workers – Public undertaking responsible for a public service – Provision of the service by another undertaking pursuant to a public service operating agreement – Decision not to extend that agreement following its expiry – Retention of identity of the economic entity – Activity based essentially on equipment – Employees not taken on
References: C-509/14, [2015] EUECJ C-509/14, ECLI:EU:C:2015:781
Links: Bailii
Statutes: Directive 2001/23/EC 1(1)

Last Update: 15 October 2020; Ref: scu.556125

Mr Stuart Glendinning and Glasgow City Council: SIC 12 Nov 2015

SIC Park Quadrant CPO – On 18 June 2015, Mr Glendinning asked Glasgow City Council (the Council) for information relating to a specified Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO). The Council provided him with some information, but told him that it did not hold information as to the amount paid to the original owners of the land, other than that paid to one organisation (which was given to him).
The Commissioner investigated and found that the Council had provided Mr Glendinning with all of the relevant information that it held.
References: [2015] ScotIC 177 – 2015
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: Scotland

Last Update: 15 October 2020; Ref: scu.556110

Goluchowski v District Court In Elblag Poland: Admn 4 Feb 2015

References: [2015] EWHC 332 (Admin)
Links: Bailii
Judges: Mitting J
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

  • At Admin – Goluchowski and SAS v District Court and Circuit Court In Poland SC 29-Jun-2016 (, [2016] UKSC 36, , [2016] 3 CMLR 39, [2016] 1 WLR 2665, [2016] WLR(D) 345, [2017] 2 All ER 887, , UKSC 2015/0073, , )
    The appellants challenged the effectiveness of European Arrest Warrants, saying that the requests were deficient in not providing adequate details of warrants issued in support of the decisions. They had been convicted and sentenced to terms of . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 15 October 2020; Ref: scu.556121

Verein Fur Konsumenteninformation v A1 Telekom Austria AG: ECJ 26 Nov 2015

ECJ Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Directive 2002/22/EC – Electronic communications networks and services – Users’ rights – Right of subscribers to terminate their contract without penalty – Changes to charges under terms of the contract – Increase in charges in line with increase in the consumer price index
References: C-326/14, [2015] EUECJ C-326/14, ECLI:EU:C:2015:782
Links: Bailii
Statutes: Directive 2002/22/EC

Last Update: 15 October 2020; Ref: scu.556131

SC Total Waste Recycling SRL v Orszagos Kornyezetvedelmi es Termeszetvedelmi Fofelugyeloseg: ECJ 26 Nov 2015

ECJ Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Environment – Waste – Shipments – Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 – Shipments within the European Union – Point of entry different from that specified in the notification and in the prior consent – Essential change to the details of a shipment of waste – Illegal shipment – Proportionality of the administrative fine
References: C-487/14, [2015] EUECJ C-487/14, ECLI:EU:C:2015:780
Links: Bailii
Statutes: Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006

Last Update: 15 October 2020; Ref: scu.556130

Hauptzollamt Frankfurt am Main v Duval GmbH and Co KG: ECJ 26 Nov 2015

Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Customs union and Common Customs Tariff – Tariff classification – Combined Nomenclature – Position 9025 – Concept of ‘thermometer’- Indicators of exposure to a predetermined target temperature to be used on one occasion only
References: C-44/15, [2015] EUECJ C-44/15, ECLI:EU:C:2015:783
Links: Bailii

Last Update: 15 October 2020; Ref: scu.556126

Medeval MedEval – Qualitats-, Leistungs- und Struktur-Evaluierung im Gesundheitswesen GmbH: ECJ 26 Nov 2015

ECJ Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Public procurement – Directive 89/665/EEC – Principles of effectiveness and equivalence – Review procedures concerning the award of public contracts – Period allowed for commencing proceedings – National legislation making an action for damages subject to a precondition that the procedure be declared unlawful – Limitation period which starts to run irrespective of the applicant’s knowledge of the unlawfulness
References: C-166/14, [2015] EUECJ C-166/14, ECLI:EU:C:2015:779
Links: Bailii
Judges: T. von Danwitz, P
Statutes: Directive 89/665/EEC

Last Update: 15 October 2020; Ref: scu.556129

Patrick Kelly and Scottish Ministers (Information Relating To Professor Muftah Salem Eljamel): SIC 17 Nov 2015

SIC On 24 March 2015, Mr Kelly asked the Ministers for information relating to Professor Muftah Salem Eljamel, a former surgeon at Ninewells Hospital, Dundee. The Ministers provided some information to Mr Kelly, but withheld the remainder under a number of different exemptions in FOISA.
Following a review, Mr Kelly remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
The Commissioner investigated and found that all of the information which the Ministers had withheld was personal data, and that disclosure of the personal data would breach the Data Protection Act.
References: [2015] ScotIC 182 – 2015
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: Scotland

Last Update: 15 October 2020; Ref: scu.556114

Residex Capital IV CV v Gemeente Rotterdam: ECJ 8 Dec 2011

ECJ Article 88(3) EC – State aid – Aid granted in the form of a guarantee to a lender for the purpose of enabling the latter to grant a loan to a borrower – Infringement of procedural rules – Obligation to recover – Nullity – Powers of the national court
References: [2011] EUECJ C-275/10, C-275/10
Links: Bailii
This case cites:

  • Opinion – Residex Capital IV CV v Gemeente Rotterdam ECJ 26-May-2011 (C-275/10, , [2011] EUECJ C-275/10)
    ECJ Opinion – Competition – State Aid-Recovery of state aid contrary to EU law – Guarantee given to a loan – Nullity of acts into national law in violation of mandatory provisions of law – Powers of the national . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 15 October 2020; Ref: scu.556124

Sarrio SA v Kuwait Investment Authority: CA 14 Nov 1996

References: [1996] EWCA Civ 965
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

  • See Also – Sarrio Sa v Kuwait Investment Authority HL 17-Nov-1997 (Times 17-Nov-97, , , [1997] UKHL 49, [1999] AC 32, [1997] 4 All ER 929, [1997] 3 WLR 1143, [1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 129, [1998] Lloyd’s Rep Bank 57, [1997] CLC 1640, [1998] ILPr 319, Independent 19-Nov-97)
    The parties were spanish companies. They were involved in proceedings against each other in Spain. The respondent had begun an action here for negligent misrepresentation against the appellant. The appellant argued that given the Spanish . .
  • See Also – Sarrio SA v Kuwait Investment Authority CA 12-Aug-1996 (, [1996] EWCA Civ 575, [1997] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 113, [1997] CLC 280, [1997] IL Pr 481, Independent 03-Oct-96)
    . .
  • See Also – Sarrio SA v Kuwait Investment Authority ComC 12-Oct-1995 ([1996] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 650, [1996] CLC 211)
    cw Conflict of laws – Brussels Convention – articles 21-22 – right to invoke – independent of domicile – forum conveniens – defendant domiciled in non-Contracting State – exclusion of common law rules – same . .

This case is cited by:

  • Appeal from – Sarrio Sa v Kuwait Investment Authority HL 17-Nov-1997 (Times 17-Nov-97, , , [1997] UKHL 49, [1999] AC 32, [1997] 4 All ER 929, [1997] 3 WLR 1143, [1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 129, [1998] Lloyd’s Rep Bank 57, [1997] CLC 1640, [1998] ILPr 319, Independent 19-Nov-97)
    The parties were spanish companies. They were involved in proceedings against each other in Spain. The respondent had begun an action here for negligent misrepresentation against the appellant. The appellant argued that given the Spanish . .
  • See – Sarrio SA v Kuwait Investment Authority CA 12-Aug-1996 (, [1996] EWCA Civ 575, [1997] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 113, [1997] CLC 280, [1997] IL Pr 481, Independent 03-Oct-96)
    . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 04 October 2020; Ref: scu.140832

Stephens Joinery Ltd v Revenue and Customs: VDT 27 Feb 2009

VDT VALUE ADDED TAX – Requirement for security under para. 4(2)(a), Sch. 11, VATA – Poor VAT compliance record of the Appellant combined with loss of VAT from businesses with which a director of the Appellant was associated – Held, the requirement had not been shown to be unreasonable – Appeal dismissed
References: [2009] UKVAT V20968
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 24 September 2020; Ref: scu.346545

Balamurali, Sandhu v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 15 Dec 2003

The applicants challenged certificates from the respondent that their appeals were mere delaying tactice.
Held: The section aimed to grant specific rights of appeal, to ensure that all possible appeal issues were decided, and to prevent abuse. The respondent had to consider whether a purpose of the appeal was to delay expulsion, and it was material to ask whether something in a second appeal could have been said earlier. The certificates were valid.
References: [2003] EWCA Civ 1806, Times 09-Jan-2004, [2004] INLR 107
Links: Bailii
Judges: Lord Justice Kennedy Lord Justice Longmore Lord Justice Parker
Statutes: Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 73
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

This case is cited by:

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 24 September 2020; Ref: scu.188849

Regina (Ngamguem) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Admn 8 Jul 2002

The applicant a native of Cameroon, had sought asylum. He was refused. His appeal to an adjudicator was dismissed, and directions for his removal were given. Some months later his solicitors submitted what they said was new evidence. They asked for the removal directions to be cancelled. The Secretary of State refused, and issued a certificate under the section. That was challenged in proceedings for judicial review.
Held: ‘In order for there to be a legitimate purpose there has to be some new material of substance placed before the Secretary of State which goes beyond what has been presented to the Special Adjudicator and it is for the Secretary of State to consider whether it does or does not have any weight. If he considers that it does not, the conclusion follows that he is entitled to certify the claim as one for the purposes of delay with no other legitimate purpose.’
References: [2002] EWHC Admin 1550
Judges: Ousely J
Statutes: Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 73(8)
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 24 September 2020; Ref: scu.190490

LHA ASRA Group Ltd (Previously Leicester Housing Association Ltd) v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 20 Apr 2010

VAT – input tax – transfer by local authority of housing stock to Registered Social Landlord – refurbishment of the stock by RSL pursuant to agreement between RSL and local authority – was RSL supplying service of refurbishment work to council – no – therefore no taxable supply to local authority – appeal dismissed
References: [2010] UKFTT 177 (TC)
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 24 September 2020; Ref: scu.422190

Shaun Batchelor Electrical Contractors Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 5 May 2010

Valued Added Tax – Default surcharge – Return and payment sent ten days late – Director and her husband went on holiday and did not submit Return and payment until after holiday until they checked on sufficient funds – whether reasonable excuse – answer no – Appeal dismissed – s.50 and s.71 VATA 1994
References: [2010] UKFTT 198 (TC)
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 24 September 2020; Ref: scu.422247

Sabar v Moroccan Enterprise and Training Centre: EAT 1 Mar 1999

References: [1999] UKEAT 433 – 98 – 0103
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

This case is cited by:

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 24 September 2020; Ref: scu.205018

BM v Secretary Of State for the Home Department: Admn 3 Jul 2009

An anti-terrorist control order had been made, inter alia on the basis of evidence which had been withheld from the defendant. That now being seen to be unlawful, the Secretary of State had withdrawn that evidence. The court was asked whether the order could continue.
Held: In a case in which the core allegations or essential case have been withdrawn, the decision of the Secretary of State, which must have been based upon them, should be reviewed to determine whether it is capable of being supported by material which cannot have been at the forefront of her mind, which may be capable of being disentangled from that which was.
References: [2009] EWHC 1572 (Admin), [2010] 1 All ER 847
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Secretary of State for the Home Deparment v AN Admn 31-Jul-2009 (, [2009] EWHC 1966 (Admin))
    The court re-considered a control order made on the basis of material withheld from the defendant. The Secretary of State had now withdrawn his reliance on that material, rather than make further disclosures. The prosecution invited the court to . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 24 September 2020; Ref: scu.347440

Cooney and Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland: SIC 14 Oct 2009

Mr Cooney requested from the Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland (the PCCS) information relating to the number of complaints that the PCCS had received regarding police forces and police authorities in Scotland and how those complaints had been dealt with. The PCCS provided some information to Mr Cooney, advised him that some information was not held by it and withheld the remainder under section 25 of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA). Following a review, Mr Cooney remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
During the investigation the PCCS released the remainder of the information which had been withheld, but Mr Cooney remained dissatisfied with the PCCS’s handling of his request and asked the Commissioner to issue a decision.
The Commissioner accepted that the PCCS had provided Mr Cooney with all relevant information. However, he concluded that it had breached Part 1 of FOISA by wrongly withholding the requested information until the investigation commenced. The PCCS did not provide any arguments in support of its decision, and so the Commissioner could only conclude that the exemption had been wrongly applied. Since the information had been disclosed, he did not require the PCCS to take any action.
References: [2009] ScotIC 117 – 2009
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: Scotland

Last Update: 24 September 2020; Ref: scu.434064

Rule and Scottish Ministers: SIC 12 Nov 2009

Mr Rule requested from the Scottish Ministers (the Ministers) correspondence held by or on behalf of the First Minister’s Office relating to Event Scotland, Historic Scotland or Visit Scotland. The Ministers responded by releasing several documents to Mr Rule, but advised him that the remainder of the information was exempt from disclosure under various exemptions in FOISA.
Following a review, the Ministers released further documents, but continued to withhold the remainder of the information. Mr Rule remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
Following an investigation, during which the Ministers disclosed additional information to Mr Rule, the Commissioner found that the Ministers had generally been entitled to withhold the remaining information. However, he found that they had incorrectly applied the exemption in section 29(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 to some of the remaining information and that they
had incorrectly applied the public interest test to some of the information. He required the Ministers to disclose this information to Mr Rule.
References: [2009] ScotIC 130 – 2009
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: Scotland

Last Update: 24 September 2020; Ref: scu.434069

Young and Aberdeen City Council: SIC 17 Sep 2009

This decision considers whether Aberdeen City Council (the Council) complied with the technical requirements of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA) in responding to an information request and requirement for review made by Mrs Greta Young.
References: [2009] ScotIC 111 – 2009
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: Scotland

Last Update: 24 September 2020; Ref: scu.434062

Christian, Regina v: CACD 20 Feb 2003

Appeal from conviction of possessing a shotgun without a firearm certificate. Investigating officers later being investigated for alleged corruption.
Held: Allowed.
References: [2003] EWCA Crim 686
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 24 September 2020; Ref: scu.270131

Barnes and Scottish Ministers: SIC 15 Jul 2009

Mr Barnes requested from the Scottish Ministers (the Ministers) information related to funding provided to the Scottish Islamic Foundation (the SIF). The Ministers responded by providing certain information to Mr Barnes, but withholding other information and relying on various exemptions in FOISA for doing so. The Ministers also explained that they did not hold other information requested by Mr Barnes. Following a review, Mr Barnes remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that the Ministers had partially failed to deal with Mr Barnes’ request for information in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA. While they had been entitled to withhold certain information under sections 30(b)(i), 30(b)(ii), 30(c), 36(2) and 38(1)(b) of FOISA, certain other information had been incorrectly withheld under section 30(b)(i) and (ii). The Commissioner required the release of the incorrectly withheld information.
References: [2009] ScotIC 080 – 2009
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: Scotland

Last Update: 24 September 2020; Ref: scu.434029

Kayat v Grattan Plc and others: EAT 29 Feb 2008

EAT Race discrimination – Inferring discrimination / Burden of Proof
whether Tribunal erred in its approach to the shifting burden of proof – whether it was open to the Tribunal on the primary facts which it found to draw inferences of race discrimination.
Unfair dismissal – Reason for dismissal including substantial other reason / Reasonableness of dismissal
whether it was open to the Tribunal on the primary facts which it found to conclude that the employee had been dismissed for a reason which related to his conduct – whether, on the assumption that the employee had been dismissed for a reason which related to his capability, it was open to the Tribunal to find that a further invitation to the employee to discuss the effect of his medical condition on his future employment might have been accepted.
References: [2008] UKEAT 0233 – 07 – 2902
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 24 September 2020; Ref: scu.266073

Regina (on the Application of Bateman) v Legal Services Commission: Admn 22 Oct 2001

The court emphasised the need for applicants for judicial review to review the merits of their case
References: [2001] EWHC Admin 797
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

  • See Also – Regina (Bateman and Bateman) v Legal Services Commission Admn 10-Sep-2001 (, [2001] EWHC Admin 696)
    The applicants sought a judicial review after their legal aid certificates were revoked for non-disclosure of various financial receipts. A financial statement prepared on their behalf had suggested substantial capital assets. The relationship . .

This case is cited by:

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 24 September 2020; Ref: scu.167246

Montes v HM Advocate: HCJ 1990

The appellant was convicted of being knowingly concerned in the fraudulent evasion of a prohibition on the importation of cocaine by importing a quantity of cocaine on a ship which docked at Greenock. The trial judge directed the jury that, in considering the case against the appellant, they could to have regard to a statement by one of his co-accused, Jensen, to Customs and Excise officers, admitting that cocaine found in his possession had been put on the ship in Colombia.
Held: This had been a misdirection: ‘In my opinion this clearly constituted a misdirection. What the appellant Jensen said to the [Customs and Excise] officers was plainly evidence against him, but it was not evidence against the other appellants. In his report the trial judge deals with this ground of appeal. It is not entirely clear whether he is maintaining that because of the earlier direction which he had given to the jury about statements by one co-accused, they ought to have realised that the answers which the appellant Jensen gave to the Customs and Excise officers were not evidence against the other accused, or whether the trial judge’s view was that these answers were evidence against the other appellants. In his report he states: ‘It is my understanding that a statement made by one accused outwith the presence of another is only inadmissible against the latter if it incriminates him.’ The passage would suggest to me that the trial judge’s view was that the answers made by the appellant Jensen were in this case admissible against his co-accused. The trial judge recognised that what Jensen said was relevant to the question of importation of cocaine, but he opined that importation by itself was not a criminal act for the purposes of charge (1). That may well be so but importation was a fact which required to be proved by the Crown if guilt under charge (1) was to be established. What the Customs and Excise Officers testified that the appellant Jensen had said to them was hearsay evidence, and so was not admissible against the co-accused as evidence of the facts alleged in the statement. In directing the jury that the evidence of the appellant Jensen’s answers was evidence upon which the jury could rely in the case of the other appellants, the trial judge, in my opinion, misdirected the jury.’
References: 1990 SCCR 645
Judges: Lord Justice Clerk Ross
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Regina v Hayter HL 3-Feb-2005 (, , [2005] UKHL 6, Times 07-Feb-05, [2005] 1 WLR 605)
    The House considered the principle that the confession of a defendant is inadmissible in a joint criminal case against a co-defendant. In a trial for murder, one party was accused of requesting a middleman to arrange for the murder by a third party. . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 24 September 2020; Ref: scu.222545

Jamieson and City of Edinburgh Council: SIC 23 Jul 2009

Mr Jamieson requested from the City of Edinburgh Council (the Council) a copy of the public consultation responses on its proposals for Lower Granton Road. The Council responded by informing Mr Jamieson that the information he sought was excepted under regulation 10(4)(d) of the Environmental Information (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (EIRs), as material which was still in the course of completion. Following a review, Mr Jamieson remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that the Council had failed to deal with Mr Jamieson’s request for information in accordance with the EIRs by incorrectly applying regulation 10(4)(d) to the information withheld. As the Council released the information during the course of the investigation he did not require it to take any action.
References: [2009] ScotIC 085 – 2009
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: Scotland

Last Update: 24 September 2020; Ref: scu.434027

T and Fife Council: SIC 28 Sep 2009

Mr T made a number of requests to Fife Council (the Council) for information relative to records held in relation to pupils at Madras College. The Council provided some of the information requested, failed to respond in other respects, or responded by indicating that the information was not held. Following reviews, Mr T remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
Following an investigation, during which certain information was provided to Mr T, the Commissioner found that the Council had failed to deal with Mr T’s requests for information in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA, by claiming that certain information was not held and in a number of technical respects.
Given that the Council provided Mr T with any information held, he did not require the Council to take any action on this occasion in response to Mr T’s applications.
References: [2009] ScotIC 114 – 2009
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: Scotland

Last Update: 24 September 2020; Ref: scu.434059

Drake Insurance Plc v Provident Insurance Plc: ComC 3 Feb 2003

A driver caused an accident, and the claimant insurance company paid out. It now sought a contribution from the defendant, who had also insured the driver, but had denied liability. The driver was a named additional driver under the second policy, but the principal insured had failed to disclose an old speeding conviction.
Held: There had been non-disclosure, but if an accident had been correctly disclosed as no-fault rather than fault, the premium would not have changed. The right of an insurer to avoid a contract for non-disclosure is akin to the right of rescission. Once the decision is communicated, the avoidance has immediate effect. If this was done in good faith, a later revision of the basis of the proposal does not revive the contract, and nor did the continuing to collect pemiums and amendment of the insurance contract.
References: [2003] EWHC 109 (Comm)
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

  • Cited – Pan Atlantic Insurance Co Ltd and Another v Pine Top Insurance Co Ltd HL 27-Jul-1994 (Times 27-Jul-94, Independent 04-Aug-94, Gazette 07-Oct-94, [1995] 1 AC 501, [1994] 3 All ER 581, [1994] 2 Lloyds Rep 427, [1994] 3 WLR 677)
    The plaintiff had written long term (tail) insurance. The defendant came to re-insure it. On a dispute there were shown greater losses than had been disclosed, and that this had been known to the Plaintiff.
    Held: ‘material circumstance’ which . .
  • Cited – Abraham Steamship v Westville HL 1923 ([1923] AC 773)
    . .
  • Cited – Manifest Shipping Co Ltd v Uni-Polaris Shipping Co Ltd and Others HL 23-Jan-2001 (Times 23-Jan-01, , , [2001] 1 All ER 743, [2001] 2 WLR 170, [2001] UKHL 1, [2003] 1 AC 469)
    The claimant took out insurance on its fleet of ships (the Star Sea). It had been laid up in its off season. The ship’s safety certificates were renewed before it sailed. It was damaged by fire. The insurers asserted that the ship had been . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 24 September 2020; Ref: scu.178956

F and Others, Regina (On the Application of) v Wirral Borough Council: Admn 9 Jul 2009

he claims allege that the Council has unlawfully failed properly to assess the social services needs of the Claimants, to provide a care plan and to meet their care needs accordingly.
References: [2009] EWHC 1626 (Admin), (2009) 12 CCL Rep 452, [2009] BLGR 905
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 24 September 2020; Ref: scu.347483

Maiden Outdoor Advertising Ltd , Regina (on the Application Of) v Lambeth: Admn 9 May 2003

Notices had been issued by the defendant local planning authority under section 11 of the 1995 Act.
Held: The notices had to be quashed for several reasons. The court considered whether there was a deemed consent: ‘It seems to me that, as things stand, it is necessary to consider in relation to any particular site whether the provision of illumination does amount to a substantial alteration in the manner of the use of the site. It may or it may not, and that will depend upon the effect of the illumination in any particular case.
It is to be remembered that the approach under the Act, and under the Regulations, is that powers should be exercised only in the interests of amenity and public safety. If there is a deemed consent to an advertisement, it seems to me that it is relevant to consider, as things stand, whether the illumination does have an effect on amenity or does create a danger. If it does not in any way, it is difficult to see how it could properly be regarded within the context of the approach to construction that should be adopted of these Regulations as a substantial alteration.
It is pertinent in my judgment to have regard to the purpose behind the need for control, which is to further the interests of amenity and to avoid any danger. It may well be thought by Lambeth, and it may be perfectly reasonable so to believe, that the advertisements, even as they are, are contrary to amenity. That is a matter which may have to be considered in the future. But as the matter stands under the Regulations, there is nothing positive that could be done unless it can be established within the terms of Regulation 8 that there is a substantial effect on amenity, or a danger resulting from this. It would be right in those circumstances to consider whether the illumination creates any additional adverse effect.’
References: [2003] EWHC 1224 (Admin), [2004] JPL 820
Links: Bailii
Judges: Collins J
Statutes: London Local Authorities Act 1995 11
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 24 September 2020; Ref: scu.185341

Halton Borough Council (Local Government): ICO 15 Jan 2019

The complainant requested information about the finances and use of the Silver Jubilee and Mersey Gateway bridges. Halton Borough Council responded, supplying some information falling within the scope of the request but confirming some information was not held. After further clarification of the information requested, the Council applied section 43 of the FOIA – commercial interests, to some of the requested information. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Council decided to release the withheld information. The Commissioner’s decision is that Halton Borough Council has breached section 10 of the FOIA by failing to provide all the information held within 20 working days. As the Council has now disclosed the information, the Commissioner does not require it to take any steps.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld
References: [2019] UKICO fs50766640
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 23 September 2020; Ref: scu.634871

Halton Borough Council (Local Government): ICO 18 Apr 2019

The complainant has requested information relating to stray dogs. Halton Borough Council failed to respond within the statutory 20 working days prescribed by FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that in failing to communicate to the complainant all the information it held to fulfil the request within the statutory timescale of 20 working days, Halton Borough Council breached section 10(1) – time for compliance, of the FOIA. The council has now provided all the information to the complainant, therefore the Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
FOI 10(1): Complaint upheld
References: [2019] UKICO fs50792193
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 23 September 2020; Ref: scu.638091

Johnstone v Thorburn: SCS 19 Feb 1900

Losses were sustained by a trust-estate owing to part of the funds having been lent to a harbour trust upon an assignment of their revenues and property. By Act of Parliament passed shortly before this investment was made it was provided that assignments for money borrowed before the passing of the Act and in force at that date should have priority over assignments for money borrowed after the passing of the Act. The investment had been submitted by the law-agent of the trust along with another for the consideration of the trustees, and while expressing his preference for the other he stated his opinion that the harbour trust investment was ‘perfectly safe.’ One of the trustees was found liable to make good the loss, upon the ground that although the investment was one of a class in which the trustees under the trust-deed were entitled to invest the funds of the trust, it was not in the circumstances sufficient in point of value to make it a reasonably prudent investment for trust funds. He brought an action of relief against the law-agent of the trust. The Court found in fact that the investment had been made, not upon the recommendation or advice of the law-agent, but as the result of independent inquiries made by one of the trustees. Held that the law-agent was entitled to absolvitor.
Opinion ( per the Lord President) that while the law-agent of a trust by submitting an investment to the trustees in effect represents that the investment is of a kind or class upon which they have power to place the trust-funds, and will be liable if loss results from the trustees having acted upon this implied representation, it is not the duty of the law-agent in respect of his appointment as law-agent to the trust, and without any express employment or instructions, to make inquiries as to the sufficiency in point of value of a proposed investment, and that consequently, even if it is not proved that the trustees proceeded upon their own inquiries in making an investment, the law-agent will not be liable unless it is proved that he was employed to advise the trustees as to the sufficiency of the security, and that the trustees acted upon his advice.
References: [1900] SLR 38 – 343
Links: Bailii
Judges: Lord Kyllachy, Ordinary
Jurisdiction: Scotland

Last Update: 23 September 2020; Ref: scu.611715

Healy v James Macgregor and Ferguson: SCS 20 Feb 1900

(Inner House Second Division) A dock labourer in the employment of a firm of stevedores was injured while engaged in stowing cargo on board a ship which was being loaded at a dock in the harbour of Glasgow. For the purpose of loading this vessel the stevedores used the steam winch on board the ship, but did not use the machinery which was on the dock.
The dock labourer claimed compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act 1897 from the stevedores as occupiers of a dock which was a factory. Held that they were not liable.
References: [1900] SLR 37 – 454
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: Scotland

Last Update: 23 September 2020; Ref: scu.611713

International Fibre Syndicate Ltd v Dawson: SCS 20 Feb 1900

A, the owner of a patent for a fibre decorticating machine, entered into an agreement with B, the owner of an estate in Borneo, whereby it was stipulated that A should supply and erect one of the machines on B’s estate, and if it proved satisfactory that B should pay for it a sum to cover cost, freight, and cost of erection, that terms should be arranged for the use of decorticators on the estate, and that the area under fibre cultivation should be increased by 25 acres per three months up to 1000 acres. A decorticating machine was supplied and erected by A. within a year after the date of this contract he assigned the patent to a limited liability company together with ‘licences concessions, and the like,’ receiving certain shares in the company, inter alia, for this patent and for ‘contracts and concessions.’ Thereafter the company with consent of A brought an action against B, in which they sued as assignees of the contract between A and B, but ultimately restricted their claim to the sum due for the machine which was in fact supplied and erected by A. In defence to this action B pleaded ‘no title to sue.’ Held that, even if the contract was included under the assignation by A to the company (which was doubtful), it was not assignable, and that the plea of ‘no title to sue’ must be sustained.
Grierson, Oldham, and Company, Limited v. Forbes Maxwell and Company Limited, June 27, 1895, 22 R. 812, followed.
Opinion ( per Lord Kincairney (Ordinary) that, A having consented to the action brought by the company upon the contract, the fact of his consent might be taken into account in determining whether the contract had in fact been assigned by him to them, and that if the decision in this case had depended upon that question only, the plea of ‘No title to sue’ could not have been sustained without inquiry.
References: [1900] SLR 37 – 451
Links: Bailii
Judges: Lord Kincairney, Ordinary
Jurisdiction: Scotland

Last Update: 23 September 2020; Ref: scu.611714

Davidson, Pirie, and Co v Dihle: SCS 20 Feb 1900

(Inner House First Division) A foreigner against whom an action of damages, proceeding on arrestments ad fundandam jurisdictionem, had been raised died in the course of the procedure, after a reclaiming-note had been presented. The pursuer requested his representatives to sist themselves as parties to the action, and on their failing to do so used further arrestments, and lodged a note craving the Court to transfer the cause against them, but to the extent only of enabling the pursuers to obtain decree cognitionis causa tantum. The pursuers failed to call certain of the representatives, whose addresses were unknown both to the pursuers and to the remaining representatives. Objection was taken to the transference by the defender’s representatives on the ground of the failure to call the whole class, and also in respect that there was no authority for transforming an action originally instituted against a living person into one of constitution against his representatives. The Court repelled the objections and transferred the cause as craved.
References: [1900] SLR 37 – 446
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: Scotland

Last Update: 23 September 2020; Ref: scu.611706

Altus Group (UK) Ltd v Baker Tilly Tax and Advisory Services Llp and Another: ChD 7 Jan 2015

The claimant claims damages for professional negligence on the part of the defendants, who carry on the business of accountants with expertise in the field of taxation, in failing to give advice that would have enabled the claimant to implement a restructuring proposal with a view to mitigating its tax liabilities. The defendants admitted the negligence but denied its causation of loss.
References: [2015] EWHC 12 (Ch), [2015] STC 788, [2015] STI 158
Links: Bailii
Judges: Keyser QC HHJ
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 23 September 2020; Ref: scu.540532

Burns v North British Railway Co: SCS 20 Feb 1900

(Inner House First Division) A railway company employed a firm of signal-makers to erect signals on a new siding which they were in the course of constructing on their own ground and as part of their existing line. A workman in the employment of the signal-maker was knocked down and killed by a passenger train while engaged in fitting the signal wires.
Held that the deceased was employed ‘on’ a railway on work of which the railway company were undertakers, and which was an essential part of their undertaking, and not ‘merely ancillary or incidental’ thereto, and accordingly that the railway company were liable to pay compensation to his relatives under section 4 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act 1897.
References: [1900] SLR 37 – 448
Links: Bailii
Judges: Lord President
Jurisdiction: Scotland

Last Update: 23 September 2020; Ref: scu.611705

Brown v Young: SCS 21 Feb 1900

(Inner House Second Division) The Burgh Police (Scotland) Act 1892, section 170, enacts that ‘every building erected for the purpose of being used as a dwelling-house . . shall have all the rooms sufficiently lighted and ventilated from an adjoining street or other open space directly attached thereto equal to at least three-fourths of the area to be occupied by the intended building.’ All the rooms in a proposed building were designed to have each a door and a chimney and one window which opened upon a court containing more than the minimum area specified in the section, and belonging to the proprietor of the proposed building. Held that the provisions of the statute as to ventilation and lighting had been sufficiently complied with.
The section does not require that there should be any open space upon more than one side of a proposed building, provided that all the rooms in it have windows which look out upon some open space which satisfies the requirements of the statute.
When all the rooms are each provided with a door, a chimney, and a window opening upon a space which satisfies the requirements of the statute, the Dean of Guild is not entitled to refuse a lining upon the ground that, looking to the character of the locality, of the proposed building, and of the buildings already erected upon the proprietor’s ground, and to the class of tenants to be expected, the arrangements made are not such as in fact to secure the adequate lighting and ventilation of the rooms.
References: [1900] SLR 37 – 466
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: Scotland

Last Update: 23 September 2020; Ref: scu.611704

Hickman v Kent or Romney Marsh Sheep Breeders ‘ Association: 1915

The court was asked whether the articles of association created rights between the shareholders and the company, or simply between the shareholders inter se in respect of their rights as shareholders. The statutory provision was seen as creating the latter, but not necessarily the former.
Held: It is the constitution of a company which confers rights on members including the right to exercise votes attached to shares. Articles regulating the rights and obligations of the members generally do create rights and obligations between them and the company respectively. A company cannot unilaterally vary its contracts by altering its articles unless that is the basis upon which the contract was made. A provision of a statutory contract cannot be enforced unless it affects the member in his or her capacity as a member
References: [1915] 1 Ch 881, [1914-15] All ER 900
Judges: Astbury J
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 23 September 2020; Ref: scu.556806

Office for Standards In Education (Education (College)): ICO 6 Jan 2015

ICO Education (College)
The complainant requested lesson observation data obtained from Ofsted’s school inspections. The Commissioner’s decision is that Ofsted correctly exempted the information under s40(2) FOIA. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2015/0009 dismissed.
FOI 40: Not upheld
References: [2015] UKICO FS50540656
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 23 September 2020; Ref: scu.554719

Waverley Borough Council (Local Government (Borough Council)): ICO 7 Jan 2015

ICO Local government (Borough council)
The complainant has requested correspondence including emails, agendas, minutes and telephone notes between Waverley Borough Council and Crest Nicholson relating to the Brightwells development scheme. The Council disclosed much of the correspondence but continued to redact information on the basis of section 40, 41 and 43 of the FOIA. The Commissioner considered the request should have been treated as a request under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (‘EIR’) and that regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR was engaged for all of the withheld information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exception and the Council has therefore correctly withheld the information.
EIR 12.5.e: Not upheld
References: [2015] UKICO FER0545300
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 23 September 2020; Ref: scu.554726

Lysanda Limited, Alexandra Willard and Emmanouil Hatiris (Patent) O00715: IPO 7 Jan 2015

An uncontested application was filed by the proprietor Lysanda Limited under section 13(3) of the Patents Act 1977. As a result, it was found that Emmanouil Hatiris should not be mentioned as a joint inventor in the published patent application and granted patent for the invention and directed that an addendum slip removing him as a joint inventor be prepared for the published patent application and granted patent for the invention.
References: [2015] UKIntelP O00715
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 23 September 2020; Ref: scu.543128

Severi, in his own name and representing Cavazzuti e figli SpA, now known as Grandi Salumifici Italiani SpA v Regione Emilia-Romagna: ECJ 10 Sep 2009

ECJ Directive 2000/13/EC – Labelling of foodstuffs to be delivered as such to the ultimate consumer – Labelling likely to mislead the purchaser as to the origin or provenance of the foodstuff – Generic names within the meaning of Article 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 Effect
References: [2009] EUECJ C-446/07, C-446/07
Links: Bailii
Statutes: Directive 2000/13/EC
This case cites:

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 23 September 2020; Ref: scu.518492