The Axholme Academy (Education): ICO 11 Nov 2019

The complainant has requested information from The Axholme Academy (‘the Academy’) associated with its minibuses. He is dissatisfied because the Academy has categorised his request as vexatious under section 14(1) of the FOIA and has refused to comply with it. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The complainant’s request is vexatious and the Academy is not obliged to comply with it. The Commissioner does not require the Academy to take any remedial steps.
FOI 14: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50846719

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.650264

Tunbridge Wells Borough Council (Local Government): ICO 25 Oct 2021

The complainants have requested information about a Tree Preservation Order (‘TPO’), from Tunbridge Wells Borough Council (the ‘Council’). The Council disclosed information it held within the scope of the request, but withheld some citing the exceptions at sections 13 (Personal data) and 12(5)(b) (Course of justice) of the EIR. The Council later revised its position and no longer relied on either of these exceptions instead saying that it had incorrectly interpreted the request and that no information was held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council’s response did not comply with EIR regulation 5(2) as it was not provided to the complainants within 20 working days of their request. She also finds that, on the civil standard of the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold any information so it complied with EIR regulation 5(1). No steps are required.
EIR 5(1): Complaint not upheld EIR 5(2): Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2021] UKICO ic-83769

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.675042

Public Services Ombudsman for Wales (Central Government): ICO 24 Oct 2022

The complainant has requested for information from the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales (‘PSOW’) relating to PSOW case reference 201900276. The PSOW refused the request under section 44 of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that PSOW has correctly applied section 44 of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
FOI 44: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2022] UKICO 194030

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.683096

Dale v Mottram: 1744

How far a demurrer shall be said to be an issuable plea.

Citations:

[1744] EngR 460, (1744) 2 Barn KB 254, (1744) 94 ER 483 (C)

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.382316

Tavoulareas v Tsavliris and Another: ComC 12 Oct 2005

Judges:

Mr Justice Andrew Smith

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 2140 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Tavoulareas v Tsavliris and others ComC 21-Mar-2003
. .
See Also – Tavoulareas v Tsavliris CA 5-Feb-2004
The court held that Greek proceedings required service for the purposes of establishing seisin, and therefore priority of jurisdiction. Mance LJ said: ‘Professor Antapassis says that, as a matter of Greek domestic law, the effect of art. 221 is that . .

Cited by:

See Also – Tavoulareas v Alexander G Tsavliris and Sons Maritime Company ComC 24-Nov-2005
. .
See Also – Tavoulareas v Tsavliris and others ComC 9-Mar-2006
Formal recognition of judgment from Greek court. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.231573

Sunderland City Council (Local Government): ICO 26 May 2020

The complainant has requested information about a government-led national drugs strategy from Sunderland City Council (‘SCC’). The Commissioner’s decision is that, based on the civil standard of the balance of probabilities, SCC does not hold the requested information. No steps are required.
FOI 1: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2020] UKICO fs50873533

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.653604

London Borough of Bromley (Local Government): ICO 21 Oct 2022

The public authority has failed to respond to this request within 20 working days, as specified in the EIR. The Commissioner requires it to provide the complainant with a response to this request within 35 calendar days in accordance with its obligations under the EIR.
EIR 5(2): Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2022] UKICO 193627

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.683028

Cape Plc v The Iron Trades Employers: ComC 21 Apr 1999

The court was asked whether the defendants, who during the policy years 1966/1971 were employers’ liability insurers with an exception in respect of ‘claims arising from Pneumoconiosis or Pneumoconiosis accompanied by tuberculosis’ agreed to cover, or to exclude as part of that exception, the plaintiffs’ liability to employees in respect of injury or disease caused by mesothelioma. Was the term ‘pneumoconiosis’ used as a catch-all word to cover all asbestos related disease caused by inhalation of asbestos dust (‘asbestos related disease’), including therefore mesothelioma, or was it rather used in a strict medical sense as meaning fibrosis of the lungs caused by inhalation of dust, which it is common ground is a different disease from that of mesothelioma?

Judges:

Rix J

Citations:

[1999] EWHC 840 (Comm), [2004] Lloyd’s Rep IR 75, [1999] PIQR Q212

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Insurance, Personal Injury

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.375124

Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (Other): ICO 14 Oct 2019

The complainant has made a request for a copy of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’s (PHSO) information security policy. Despite the intervention of the Commissioner, the PHSO has not provided a response to the request in accordance with the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the PHSO has failed to respond to the complainant’s request within 20 working days of receipt and has therefore breached section 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the PHSO to provide the complainant with a response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50876040

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.643513

NHS England (Health): ICO 31 Oct 2022

The complainant has requested information relating to an investigation. The above public authority (the public authority) relied on section 41 of FOIA (actionable breach of confidence) in order to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority has correctly applied section 41 of FOIA to the withheld information. However, the public authority breached sections 10 and 17 of FOIA in responding to the request. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
FOI 17: Complaint upheld FOI 10: Complaint upheld FOI 41: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2022] UKICO 151376

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.683077

Health and Safety Executive (Other): ICO 18 Oct 2019

The complainant has requested information regarding an explosion at a power plant. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) disclosed some information and withheld the remainder under regulations 12(5)(b), 12(5)(e) and 13 of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the HSE has correctly applied the provisions of regulation 12(5)(b) to all the information in scope of the request and the public interest favours maintaining the exception and withholding the information.
EIR 12(5)(b): Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fer0804063

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.643473

Department of Health and Social Care (Central Government): ICO 22 Oct 2021

The complainant has requested the scientific advice used to inform changes to the shielding policy in July 2020, during the coronavirus pandemic. The Department of Health and Social Care (‘DHSC’) withheld the information under section 35(1)(a) of the FOIA (formulation or development of government policy) and considered the public interest favoured maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: At the time of the request, DHSC correctly applied section 35(1)(a) of the FOIA to the information, but the public interest favoured its disclosure. The Commissioner requires DHSC to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Disclose the information being withheld under section 35(1)(a), having first redacted the personal data of any less senior officers. First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) Information Rights appeal EA/2021/0358 under appeal.
FOI 35: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2021] UKICO ic-84300

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.675006

North East London NHS Trust (Health): ICO 19 Nov 2019

The complainant requested information from North East London NHS Foundation Trust (‘the Trust’) about complaints against the Trust, overpayments and information requests to the Trust. The Commissioner’s decision is that Trust has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the Trust to respond to the complainant’s request in accordance with the FOIA.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50873059

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.650354

Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police (Police and Criminal Justice): ICO 25 Oct 2021

The complainant requested the audio or transcripts of telephone calls between specified parties during a specified timeframe. West Yorkshire Police neither confirmed nor denied holding the requested information, citing sections 40(5) (personal information) and 30(3) (investigations and proceedings) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that West Yorkshire Police was entitled to rely on section 30(3) of FOIA to neither confirm nor deny whether it held the requested information. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken as a result of this decision.
FOI 30: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2021] UKICO ic-77418

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.674997

North Somerset Council (Local Government): ICO 12 Oct 2022

The complainant requested information from North Somerset Council (‘the Council’) about traffic data. The Council initially withheld the information under regulation 12(4)(d) of the EIR – material in the course of completion, etc – but subsequently withdrew its reliance on the exception and disclosed the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR, since it failed to disclose the information within 20 working days of receiving the request. Since the information has now been disclosed, the Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
EIR 5(2): Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2022] UKICO 140153

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.683083

Plymouth City Council (Local Government) ic-74199: ICO 29 Oct 2021

The complainant requested information relating to Davenport Energy from Waste Facility in Plymouth. Plymouth City Council (the council) initially declared the request vexatious. However, on review it provided some information and said that other information is not held. The complainant believes that more information is held, that some of the information which was disclosed is inaccurate, and that the council has not responded to all of his requests and questions. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has not complied with the requirements of Regulation 5(1) in that it has not responded to some sections of the complainant’s request for information. She has also decided that the council did not comply with Regulation 5(2) in that it did not provide this information within 20 working days after the date of receipt of the request. However, she also finds that the council was correct to apply Regulation 6(1) to refuse to provide information in response to some of the requests in the format requested. She has also decided that no further information is held in response to some parts of the request for the purposes of Regulation 12(4)(a). The Commissioner requires the council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
EIR 12(4)(a): Complaint partly upheld EIR 5(2): Complaint upheld EIR 6(1): Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2021] UKICO ic-74199

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.675032

University of Bristol (Education): ICO 1 Nov 2022

The complainant has requested draft copies of the report ‘The Colston Statue: What next?’ The University of Bristol refused to provide the requested information, citing section 36(2)(b)(ii) (prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 36(2)(b)(ii) is engaged but the public interest favours disclosure. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps: Disclose the withheld information, with all personal data redacted.
FOI 36: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2022] UKICO 185925

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.683188

London Borough of Croydon (Local Government) ic-137865: ICO 18 Nov 2021

The complainant requested information from the London Borough of Croydon (‘the Council’) relating to a specific planning application. By the date of this notice the Council had not issued a substantive response to this request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR in that it failed to provide a valid response to the request within the statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation. The Council must provide a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the EIR. The Council must take this step within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
EIR 5(2): Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2021] UKICO ic-137865

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.675114

Equitas Ltd v R and Q Reinsurance Company (UK) Ltd: ComC 11 Nov 2009

The court was asked as to the correct construction of 26 Excess Loss (‘XL’) retrocession insurance contracts in the London market.

Judges:

Gross J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 2787 (Comm), [2009] 2 CLC 706

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Crema v Cenkos Securities Plc CA 16-Dec-2010
C sought payment of broker fees after assisting in raising funds for a venture capital company. The parties disputed the terms as to when payment was to be made.
Held: The appeal was allowed. The evidence did not allow the inference of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.377857

HM Treasury (Central Government): ICO 29 Nov 2021

The complainant submitted a request to HM Treasury (HMT) seeking copies of the weekly public polling questions conducted by Hanbury Strategy and Communications on behalf of HMT. HMT withheld the information on the basis of sections 35(1)(a) (formulation and development of government policy) and 43(2) (commercial interests) of FOIA. It subsequently argued that if section 35(1)(a) was found not to apply then it would to seek to rely, in the alternative, on section 36(2)(c) (effective conduct of public affairs). The Commissioner’s decision is that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 43(2) and that in all the circumstances of the request the public interest favours maintaining the exemption.
FOI 43: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2021] UKICO ic-98076

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.675100

London Borough of Hillingdon (Local Government) 178034: ICO 14 Oct 2022

The complainant has requested information relating to a development of a former police station, primarily relating to heating and energy assessments. The request was initially refused by London Borough of Hillingdon (‘the Council’) as manifestly unreasonable due to the volume of information included. The Council later provided links to all the publicly available information and upon further searches provided documents relating to building control. The Commissioner’s decision is that on balance, the Council has complied with its obligations under Regulation 5(1) by providing the information it holds in scope of the request. However, the Council failed to comply with its obligations to provide this in the required timeframe and so has breached Regulation 5(2) of the EIR. No steps are required.
EIR 5(1): Complaint not upheld EIR 5(2): Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2022] UKICO 178034

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.683037

BBC (Other): ICO 20 Oct 2021

The complainant has requested information relating to the BBC spend for the 2020 Olympics coverage. The BBC explained the information was covered by the derogation and excluded from FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that this information was held by the BBC for the purposes of ‘journalism, art or literature’ and did not fall inside FOIA. She therefore upholds the BBC’s position and requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case.
FOI 1: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2021] UKICO ic-123707

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.674988

East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust (Health): ICO 16 Oct 2019

The complainant has requested from East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust (‘the Trust’) information associated with any due diligence it carried out on a particular developer. The Trust initially said it did not hold any information falling within the scope of the request. It subsequently accepted that it holds some information that is broadly relevant. The Trust has confirmed that it will release some of the information but that the remainder is exempt information under section 41 of the FOIA (information provided in confidence) and section 43(2)(commercial interests), with the public interest favouring maintaining the latter exemption. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The requested information is environmental information which should be handled under the EIR. The Trust can rely on the exception at regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR (commercial information) to withhold the information that falls within the scope of part 2 of the request. The public interest favours maintaining this exception. The Trust is in breach of regulation 5(1) and 5(2) with regard to the information requested in part 1, as it has not made this information available to the complainant within the required timescale. The Commissioner requires the Trust to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: Release the information that it holds that falls within part 1 of the complainant’s request.
EIR 5: Complaint upheld EIR 12(5)(e): Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fer0871431

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.643466

Hush Brasseries Ltd v Rlukref Nominees (UK) One Ltd and Others: ChD 1 Dec 2022

Whether a clause in an option agreement which permits a grantor (or its successor-in-title) to terminate the option on the grantee’s default of its obligations in a related lease is a forfeiture provision in respect of which the court can grant relief from forfeiture.

Judges:

HH Judge Klein

Citations:

[2022] EWHC 3018 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.683613

Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust (Health): ICO 11 Oct 2022

The complainant has requested information relating to the procedure for inserting a nasogastric feeding tube in a patient. The trust confirmed that it does not hold the requested information. The Commissioner is satisfied that on the balance of probabilities the trust does not hold the requested information. He has however recorded a breach of section 10 of FOIA as the trust failed to respond to the complainant’s request within 20 working days of receipt.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld FOI 1: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2022] UKICO 159334

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.683103

Cooper v The Freedom Travel Group Ltd: CA 25 Nov 2022

The interpretation of the word ‘debtor’ in section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (‘CCA 1974’). Should ‘debtor’ be interpreted as referring only to contractual parties to a credit agreement or should it include third party beneficiaries of such an agreement?

Judges:

Lady Justice Macur
Lady Justice Nicola Davies
And
Lady Justice Carr

Citations:

[2022] EWCA Civ 1557

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Consumer Credit Act 1974 75

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Consumer

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.683494

BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA and others: SC 5 Oct 2022

Sequana’s subsidiary was liable to indemnify BTI for costs arising from the clean-up of a polluted river. The directors of the subsidiary resolved that it should pay a substantial dividend to Sequana, without – BTI says – leaving enough money in the subsidiary to pay for the clean-up costs. The Court was asked whether the trigger for the directors’ duty to consider creditors is merely a real risk of, as opposed to a probability of, or close proximity to, insolvency.
Held: BTI’s appeal failed.

Judges:

Lord Reed, Lord Hodge, Lord Briggs, Lady Arden, Lord Kitchin

Citations:

[2022] UKSC 25, [2019] Bus LR 2178, UKSC 2019/0046, [2022] 3 WLR 709, [2022] Bus LR 920

Links:

Bailii, Bailii, Bailii Press Summary, Bailii Issues and Facts, WLRD, SC 21 May 04 am Video, SC 21 May 04 pm Video, SC 05 May 21 am Video, SC 05 May 21 pm Video, SC, SC Summary, National Archive, SC Summary Video, Bailii Press Summary, Bailii Issues and Facts

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – BTI 2014 Llc v Sequana SA and Others CA 6-Feb-2019
The Court considered a Director’s duty to act in the interests of his company’s creditors. The Directors were said to have paid out an excessive dividend to put assets beyond the reach of its creditors. . .
Cited – West Mercia Safetywear Ltd v Dodds CA 1988
If a company continues to trade whilst insolvent but in the expectation that it would return to profitability, it should be regarded as trading not for the benefit of the shareholders, but for the creditors also. If there is a possibility of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Company, Insolvency, Insolvency

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.681435

Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Central Government) ic-88416: ICO 8 Mar 2022

The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) seeking reports provided to it by the World Health Organisation (WHO). The FCDO refused to release the reports under FOIA. The complainant subsequently asked the FCDO to provide him with a copy of WHO’s request that such reports were treated confidentially. The FCDO confirmed that it held such information, but it considered this information to also be exempt from disclosure, citing the exemptions contained at the following sections of FOIA27(1)(b) to (d), 27(2) (international relations) and 40(2) personal data of FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 27(2) of FOIA and that in all the circumstances of the request the public interest favours maintaining the exemption.
FOI 27: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2022] UKICO ic-88416

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.674954

Commission v Council (Adhesion A L’Acte De Geneve) (Action for Annulment): ECJ 22 Nov 2022

Action for annulment – Council Decision (EU) 2019/1754 – Accession of the European Union to the Geneva Act of the Lisbon Agreement on Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications – Article 3(1) TFEU – Exclusive competence of the European Union – Article 207 TFEU – Common commercial policy – Commercial aspects of intellectual property – Article 218(6) TFEU – Right of initiative of the European Commission – Modification by the Council of the European Union of the proposal from the Commission – Article 293(1) TFEU – Applicability – Article 4(3), Article 13(2) and Article 17(2) TEU – Article 2(1) TFEU – Principles of conferral of powers, of institutional balance and of sincere cooperation

Citations:

C-24/20, [2022] EUECJ C-24/20

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.683333

Cameroon Airlines v Transnet Ltd: ComC 29 Jul 2004

Where it is claimed that the arbitral tribunal adopted improper procedures to determine an issue, the court should decline to try the issue in order to establish whether substantial injustice has in fact been caused.

Judges:

Langley J

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 1829 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Arbitration Act 1996 68 69

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Michael Wilson and Partners Ltd v Emmott ComC 8-Jun-2011
The claimant challenged an arbitration award made concerning the agreement under which the defendant had been admitted to partnership. MWP contended that the Tribunal were guilty of a large number of serious irregularities in their conduct of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Arbitration

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.239303

Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Central Government) ic-84370: ICO 8 Mar 2022

The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) seeking four documents provided to it by the World Health Organisation concerning the Ebola crisis in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The FCDO withheld the information on the basis of sections 27(1)(a) to (d), section 27(2) (international relations) and section 40(2) (personal data) of FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 27(2) of FOIA and that in all the circumstances of the request the public interest favours maintaining the exemption.
FOI 27: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2022] UKICO ic-84370

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.674953

The Advocate General (Representing Revenue and Customs) v K E Entertainments Ltd: SC 24 Jun 2020

The question on this appeal is whether a bingo promoter is entitled to a refund of Value Added Tax (‘VAT’) paid to the Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (‘HMRC’) over many years on fees charged to customers for the right to play bingo.

Judges:

Lord Reed, President, Lord Hodge, Deputy President, Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Sales, Lord Leggatt

Citations:

[2020] UKSC 28

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Summary

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

VAT

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.651924

Bridgestep Limited; Bridge (Use of ‘Self-Employed’ Drivers Under Contract for Services): UTAA 4 Mar 2020

The use of ‘self-employed’ drivers under contract for services; whether such contracts were consistent with the operator’s responsibilities under the operator’s licence; whether the transport manager had continuous and effective management of transport operations without the right to direct and control its drivers; adequacy of notice that adverse findings likely or possible on these issues

Citations:

[2020] UKUT 121 (AAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.651801

Mason v Information Commissioner and London Borough of Barnet (GIA): UTAA 19 Feb 2020

The First-tier Tribunal’s decision that information was not ‘environmental information’ within regulation 2 of the Environmental Information Regulations 2000 was in error of law because the tribunal did not correctly apply the guidance in DBEIS v IC and Henney [2017] PTSR 1644. The case was remitted to the FTT for reconsideration.

Citations:

[2020] UKUT 56 (AAC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.651798

Smith, Regina v: CACD 6 May 2020

Renewed application for permission to appeal against sentence. he applicant had pleaded guilty to two counts of aggravated burglary committed with a co-defendant. The Judge imposed an extended sentence with a custodial term of 12 years and an extension of 4 years on both defendants for both offences to be served concurrently.

Citations:

[2020] EWCA Crim 669

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.651729

Gwynedd Council v Barratt and Another (Redundancy): EAT 3 Jun 2020

The Claimants were dismissed for redundancy following the closure of the school where they worked. They were unsuccessful in applying for positions at a new school that opened at the same location. The Tribunal held that the dismissals were unfair because of the failure to provide the Claimants with a right of appeal, the absence of consultation and because of the manner in which they were required to ‘apply for their own jobs’. The Respondent local authority appealed on the grounds that the Tribunal had erred in its approach to the assessment of fairness under s.98(4) of the 1996 Act in that it had treated guidelines as to what an employer should do in a redundancy dismissal as inflexible legal requirements; and had failed to take account of the particular limitations on the Respondent’s role in relation to recruitment at a maintained school.
Held, dismissing the appeal, that the Tribunal had not erred in its approach to fairness. Whilst some parts of the Tribunal’s judgment might be indicative of a rigid approach, a fair reading of the whole judgment reveals that it did not treat guideline cases as laying down mandatory requirements that had to be applied in every case. Whether or not the Respondent acted fairly in applying that process in the circumstances of this case was to be judged by an application of s98(4) of the 1996 Act and that is what the Tribunal did. In doing so, it did not err in its understanding of the relationship between the Respondent and the Governing Bodies of the schools as set out in the relevant regulations.

Citations:

[2020] UKEAT 0206 – 18 – 0306

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.651614