Walton v Commissioners of Inland Revenue: CA 30 Nov 1995

The court considered the valuation of a farm for Capital Transfer Tax purposes

Judges:

Evans, Peter Gibson, Henry LJJ

Citations:

[1995] EWCA Civ 61, [1996] RVR 55, [1996] 1 EGLR 159, [1996] STC 68, [1996] 21 EG 144, [1996] 21 EG 144

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Finance Act 1975 22(1) 23

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Inheritance Tax

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.577824

Channon (T/A Channon and Co) v Ward: QBD 12 May 2015

The claimant had lost significant sums through his accountancy practice, but now claimed that his insurance broker, the defendant had negligently failed to renew his professional indemnity policies, even though he had supplied policy numbers to the claimant. The defendant disputed whether the losses were part of the claimant’s practice.
Held: a burden lay on Claimant to establish that but for the negligence of the Defendant there would have been a policy in existence that covered the claim in question. Ordinarily such a step will not be difficult. Thereafter the burden is carried by the defendant broker if he seeks to establish that the insurer would have repudiated for some reason, whether that be by reason of breach of a condition or exemption.

Judges:

Cotter QC HHJ

Citations:

[2015] EWHC 4256 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Munro Brice and Co v War Risks Association 1918
Bailhache J discussed the principle that if there is a qualification of the general risk which covers the policy’s whole scope (so that there is no unqualified risk left), the burden is on the insured to prove facts which bring the case within the . .
Cited – Fraser v B N Furman (Productions) Ltd CA 1967
The employer’s liability policy contained a condition precedent that the insured should take reasonable precautions to prevent accidents and disease. The company sought to rely upon the clause to avoid liability.
Held: ”Reasonable’ does not . .
Cited – Armory v Delamirie KBD 1722
A jeweller to whom a chimney sweep had taken a jewel he had found, took the jewel out of the socket and refused to return it. The chimney sweep sued him in trover. On the measure of damages, the court ruled ‘unless the defendant did produce the . .
Cited – Phillips and Co and Another v Whatley PC 2-May-2007
(Gilbraltar) The respondent had made a claim against his former lawyers, the appellants, alleging that he had lost out on a very significant personal injury claim for their failure to issue a writ in time. . .
Adopted – Everett v Hogg Robinson 1973
The court was asked whether a re-insurer would have repudiated by reason of a failure to disclose an adverse claims record had the broker not been negligent.
Held: if a broker relies on a causation defence he must satisfy the court that the . .
Cited – Allied Maples Group Ltd v Simmons and Simmons CA 12-May-1995
Lost chance claim – not mere speculative claim
Solicitors failed to advise the plaintiffs sufficiently in a property transaction. A warranty against liability for a former tenant’s obligations under leases had not been obtained. The trial judge held that, on a balance of probabilities, there was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Professional Negligence, Damages

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.572351

Peter Robert Goodall (Patent): IPEC 16 Mar 2015

On 25 January 2011 a combined search and examination report was issued raising a number of substantive issues and setting a response date of 23 July 2012. The applicant did not reply until 24 December 2014 when he requested that he be allowed to file a late response. The examiner refused.
At the hearing the applicant provided a written timeline explaining his circumstances between January 2012 and the end of December 2014. He also provided additional information and detail orally. The hearing officer accepted that this showed that the applicant had experienced a series of unfortunate and unusual events spanning the vast majority of the period of time from before the specified response date to the present day. The hearing officer also accepted that the applicant’s reasons for responding late were peculiar to him and his application and that they were sufficient in terms of severity and extent to justify the exercise of discretion in this case. The hearing officer thus decided to allow a late response.
The hearing officer gave the applicant one month to file his response to the examination report. If he does not do so within this time then the application will be refused under section 18(3).

Citations:

[2015] UKIntelP o11315

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.545465

Avaya Inc (Patent): IPEC 16 Feb 2015

The application relates to a method for assigning a customer service agent to a customer when, for example, the customer contacts a call centre. The Hearing Officer applied the Aerotel test and decided that the contribution made by the invention fell solely within excluded matter. He also considered the decisions in ATandT Knowledge Ventures LP and CVON and HTC Europe Co. Ltd. v Apple Inc. and concluded that the contribution did not have a relevant technical effect. The application was refused as no more than some combination of a business method and a program for a computer as such.
The Hearing Officer also considered the issue of novelty and concluded that the application was novel over the disclosure of US7231034 B1.
Finally, the Hearing Officer considered inventive step and, following the steps set out in Windsurfing (as restated in Pozzoli), concluded that the invention lacked an inventive step over the disclosure of US7231034 B1.

Citations:

[2015] UKIntelP o07115

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.545459