Glais House Care Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Capital Allowances): FTTTx 28 Jan 2019

CORPORATION TAX – capital allowances – expenditure on fixtures on which capital allowances had been claimed by previous owner – claim limited to amount which vendor had been required to bring into account – whether or not this was determined by allocations in contract between the parties – held not – whether or not this was determined by amount actually brought into account by vendor – held not – appeal allowed in part

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 59 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.635665

Innvotec 6 Llp v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Relief for Expenditure On Qualifying Film): FTTTx 28 Jan 2019

Income tax – 100% relief for expenditure on qualifying film – s 42 Finance (No 2) Act 1992 and s 48 Finance (No 2) Act 1997 – delay in obtaining certificate as to status of film – whether claim made out of time – alternative claim for subsequent year under s 140 Income Tax (Trading and Other Income) Act 2005 – whether allocation of expenditure to relevant year made out of time – whether valid provisional claim made – whether certification of film by Hungarian authorities under European Convention on Cinematic Co-production sufficient – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 66 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.635668

Contentisking Ltd v Revenue and Customs (VAT – Penalties : Reasonable Excuse): FTTTx 28 Jan 2019

VALUE ADDED TAX – default surcharge – whether failure to pay VAT on time as a result of being unaware of a same day transfer limit applied by the Appellant’s bank amounts to a reasonable excuse – no – whether penalty disproportionate – no – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 64 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.635660

Naismith v Boyes: HL 28 Jul 1899

A testator, by a settlement disposing of his whole estate, made certain provisions for his wife and children, subject to the declaration that these provisions should be in full of their legal claims.
The wife and children accepted the provisions of the settlement.
By the death of the residuary legatees before the period of vesting provided by the settlement part of the estate fell into intestacy.
Held (aff. judgment of the First Division, dub. Lord Davey) that the legal rights of the wife and surviving child were only excluded in so far as conflicting with the settlement, and were not excluded from estate falling into intestacy.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Halsbury), Lord Shand, and Lord Davey

Citations:

[1899] UKHL 973, 36 SLR 973

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Wills and Probate

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.631838

Stevenson and Others v Steel Co of Scotland: HL 24 Jul 1899

In 1871 A’s trustees (the first party) feued to trustees for the firm of B. and Sons (the second party), their heirs and assignees, two plots of ground forming part of the estate of Blochairn, under the ‘declaration and provision that a street shall be made’ of 60 feet width along the south boundary of the plots, and that it should be formed upon such levels as the first party or their successors in the said lands and estate ‘including any parties who have feued or who may feu or purchase the ground on the opposite side of the said street,’ and the second party or their foresaids might think fit, ‘having regard to the continuation of the same eastward so as to conveniently accommodate the portion of’ the first party’s ‘remaining lands lying . . to the east of the ground hereby feued.’ It was also declared that the second party and their foresaids should be bound ‘whenever required by the first party or their foresaids, including as aforesaid’ to make the one-half of the roadway lying next to the plots disponed to the second party. It was further declared that the first party and their foresaids should be entitled to give a right to use the said road and any others that might be formed by the second party and their foresaids on the ground disponed to their feuars in the remaining parts of the lands of Blochairn, and that the second party and their foresaids should have right of access and power to use any streets which should be formed by the first party or their feuars in the remaining portions of the lands of Blochairn, and the first party bound themselves to insert clauses sufficient to secure these objects in all future conveyances of the lands of Blochairn or parts thereof.
I 1877 A’s trustees sold and disponed part of the lands of Blochairn, lying to the east of the ground feued off in 1871, to C, with their ‘whole rights, title, and interest, present and future, there-in.’ The disposition imposed no obligation upon the disponees to construct any road or any real burden in pursuance of the superior’s obligation contained in the feucontract of 1871.
In an action by C. to compel a successor of the firm of B. and Sons to implement their obligation to make the 60 feet road contained in the feucontract of 1871, held (aff. judgment of the First Division) that the superiors having failed to implement their part of the mutual stipulations as to streets in the said feucontract, neither they nor their successors were in titulo to enforce the counter obligations undertaken by B. and Sons’ trustees.
Opinion that if the superiors under the feucontract had retained the right to enforce the said obligations, that right would have been carried to C. by the disposition of 1877, although neither ‘a successor’ of the superior in terms of the feucontract of 1871, nor vested with a jus quaesitum under that contract.

Judges:

Lord Watson (in the Chair), Lord Shand, and Lord Davey

Citations:

[1899] UKHL 946, 36 SLR 946

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Land

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.631840

Stewart v Maclaine: HL 24 Nov 1899

A tenant who had possessed a sheep-farm under a formal lease embodying certain estate regulations applied for a renewal of his lease by letter in the following terms:-‘I hereby offer to take the farms of Rossal and Dernacullen as at present possessed by me on the following terms, viz., Lease, five years, Rossal, rent pounds 100 per annum; Dernacullen, rent, pounds 40 per annum. Right of fishing in the Coleader river for two rods; a porch to be erected at kitchen door of Rossal house. Your acceptance of the above will oblige.’ That offer was accepted.
Held ( aff. the judgment of the Second Division) that the estate regulations could not be treated as incorporated in the missives, either by reference to the former lease or as provisions usual and proper in such leases, and which must have been in contemplation of the parties on entering into the contract.
Observed, that the fact that the tenant had in the negotiations subsequent to the exchange of the missives repudiated any intention to be bound by the missives, did not prevent him from maintaining that these regulations as regards the taking over of sheep stock at the termination of the lease formed, on a true construction of the missives, part of the contract between him and the landlord.
Opinion (by Lord Shand) that if the tenant were able to prove a universal and clear custom in regard to the stock to be taken over by the landlord at the termination of the lease, such custom might be read into missives containing no express provision on the subject as part of the lease. Evidence held insufficient to prove any such custom.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Halsbury), Lord Macnaghten, Lord Shand, Lord Brampton, and Lord Robertson

Citations:

[1899] UKHL 623, 37 SLR 623

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.631845

Glasgow Trades House: HL 24 Jul 1920

This Order was promoted by the Trades House of Glasgow, a corporate body originating in 1605 by Letter of Guildry, and ratified and confirmed subsequently by Acts of Parliament. Two of the fourteen trade guilds which constituted the House, the Incorporation of Tailors and the Incorporation of Maltmen, were opposing the Order, and the money required for the promotion had been subscribed by the twelve other incorporations.
The four senior incorporations-the hammermen, the tailors, the cordiners, and the maltmen-had each six representatives in the House, the weavers had four, the bakers, skinners, wrights, coopers, fleshers, masons, gardeners, and barbers three each, and the dyers two. The Order proposed, while leaving the representation of the four senior as at present, to make the representation of each of the ten junior incorporations four, thereby increasing the total number of representatives from 54 to 64. The House was possessed of large funds which it had to administer, and the income from which it used in giving pensions, bursaries, subscriptions, and donations. Its deacon convener was ex officio a member of Glasgow Town Council and a director of many benevolent institutions. The House also had the right to nominate representatives to sit on the boards of direction of various public bodies, such as the Clyde Navigation Trust, and co.
The opposition was based on the grounds that the constitution of such an ancient institution as the Trades House of Glasgow should not be altered save for some very clearly established and practical reason; that there was no substantive cause even put forward for the change proposed, which again was going to base the constitution of the House on no logical principle; that the present representation could be defended as a recognition of the greater efforts of the senior incorporations in early days; that the change would give-and that might be exercised to the detriment of the senior incorporations-additional power to the junior incorporations in dealing with pensions.
The Commissioners found the preamble proved.
Clauses were adjusted.

Citations:

[1920] UKHL 786, 57 SLR 786

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Commercial

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.631540

A2A SpA v Agenzia delle Entrate: ECJ 3 Sep 2015

Reference for a preliminary ruling – State aid – Determination of the calculation of interest relating to the recovery of aid that is incompatible with the common market – Simple or compound interest – National legislation referring, for the calculation of interest, to Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 – Recovery decision notified before that regulation entered into force

Citations:

[2015] EUECJ C-89/14, ECLI:EU:C:2015:537

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Citing:

Opinion – A2A SpA v Agenzia delle Entrate ECJ 26-Mar-2015
(Advocate Generals Opinion) Reference for a preliminary ruling – State aid – Decision to recover unlawful aid – Method of calculating the interest applicable to that recovery – Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 – Article 11 – Compound interest – Article . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.632108

Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Central Government): ICO 4 Jan 2021

The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) seeking information it held about the her father who died in a car accident in Pakistan in 1964 whilst working at as the Second Secretary at the High Commission in Lahore. The FCDO explained that it did not hold any information falling within the scope of the complainant’s request. The complainant disputed the FCDO’s response. The Commissioner is satisfied that on the balance of probabilities the FCDO does not hold any information falling within the scope of the complainant’s request.
FOI 1: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2021] UKICO IC-46266

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.657977

Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Central Government): ICO 6 Jan 2021

The complainant requested information from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) concerning contracts between the FCDO and Torchlight Group Ltd. A substantive response to the request had not been issued by the date of this notice. The Commissioner’s decision is that the FCDO has failed to complete its deliberations on the balance of the public interest within a reasonable time and has therefore breached section 17(3) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the FCDO to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Having confirmed that information is held within the scope of the request: either disclose the requested information or issue a refusal notice in accordance with the requirements of section 17 of the FOIA. The FCDO must take these steps 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 FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
FOI 17: Complaint upheld

Citations:

[2021] UKICO IC-80443

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.657978

Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc v Kymab Ltd and Another: CA 23 May 2018

Leave to appeal to Supreme Court refused. Other post judgment issues – form of order.

Citations:

[2018] EWCA Civ 1186

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At PatC – Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc v Kymab Ltd and Another PatC 1-Feb-2016
The parties disputed the validity of K’s patented mouse. R said that the specification was insufficient to allow reproduction, and that it was therefore incomplete.
Held: The specification was insufficient, and the patents invalid. The issue . .
Main CA Judgment – Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc v Kymab Ltd and Another CA 28-Mar-2018
The claimant R now appealed from a finding that its two patents involving transgenic mice were invalid. The ‘in situ replacement’ failed to comply.
Held: The appeal succeeded. . .

Cited by:

Request for leave – Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc v Kymab Ltd SC 24-Jun-2020
SC Kymab alleged that the relevant patents are invalid for insufficiency because they did not enable the ordinary skilled person to work the claimed invention across the breadth of the claims. The patents were . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property, Animals

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.617309

Ferguson v Paterson and Others: HL 13 Mar 1900

The custody of trust funds is not property entrusted to the law-agent of the trust, and the immunity conferred upon trustees by a clause of indemnity against loss by the intromissions of their factors or agents does not extend to such a case, the clause only covering acts of factors or agents properly appointed and acting within the legitimate scope of their agency.
In July 1887, on a change of investment, certain trust funds were received by the law-agent and factor of the trust, and remained in his hands pending investment till the following December. On 21st December the trustees became aware that those funds had been placed in bank on deposit-receipt in the agent’s name, and they then instructed the agent to re-deposit it in their name as trustees. Between the 21st December and the 18th June following one of the trustees called repeatedly upon the agent to see that the transfer had been made, but was on each occasion met by the excuse that the agent had sustained an accident and was too ill to attend to business. No communication was made by the trustees to the bank, and on 18th January the agent cashed the receipt and misappropriated the proceeds, Prior to this the trustees had no reason to suspect their agent’s solvency or integrity. They were protected by an indemnity clause in their trust-deed declaring that they were not to be liable for the intromissions of any agent who, in transacting the business of the trust, should receive any part of the trust estate into his hands.
In an action brought by a beneficiary, held ( rev. the judgment of the First Division, diss. Lord Morris) that the trustees were liable for the loss sustained through the agent’s defalcation.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Halsbury), Lords Macnaghten, Morris, Shand, Davey, and Lord James of Hereford

Citations:

[1900] UKHL 635, 37 SLR 635

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Trusts

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.631498

BTI 2014 Llc v Sequana Sa and Others: ChD 11 Jul 2016

Allegation that the payment of dividends was in breach of Part 23 of the 2006 Act. The direcors had signed the necessary certificate as to solvency before resolving to reduce the company capital and paying a dividend.
Held: When making such a statement, the directors were not being asked what would be the position if a calamity occurred. The test was whether at the time and circumstances of the statement, and taking account of the anticipated contingencies, the company was solvent.
However, the payment of a dividend could be a transaction at an undervalue within section 423(1) of the 1986 Act.

Judges:

Rose J

Citations:

[2016] EWHC 1686 (Ch), [2016] WLR(D) 388, [2017] Bus LR 82

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Companies Act 2006, Insolvency Act 1986 423(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – BTI 2014 Llc v Sequana Sa and Others ChD 10-Feb-2017
Applications and orders following dismissal of principle claim. . .
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. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Company, Insolvency

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.566875

Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc v Kymab Ltd and Another: PatC 1 Feb 2016

The parties disputed the validity of K’s patented mouse. R said that the specification was insufficient to allow reproduction, and that it was therefore incomplete.
Held: The specification was insufficient, and the patents invalid. The issue of construction which divided the parties is the meaning of ‘in situ replacement’
Henry Carr J considered the rival arguments on construction before concluding: ‘In my judgment, in situ replacement means replacing ‘in the position of’. The phrase is apt to describe a positional replacement and this is how it is used in context. The human sequences are to be inserted in the original position of the mouse segments juxtaposed with the mouse constant regions. The skilled person would appreciate that the patentee is using this language to distinguish targeted replacement from random insertion into the genome. This includes the case where the relevant murine sequence is deleted, and also the case where it is moved to a different location and inactivated.
The word ‘replacement’ is used in the specification to describe both deletion and displacement/inactivation. The invention is concerned with the use of LTVECs and the MOA assay to enable the targeted insertion and detection of human variable V, D and J gene segments, in place of mouse variable V, D and J gene segments, whilst retaining the mouse constant segments. Given that inactivation was a well-known alternative to deletion at the priority date, I do not consider that it would make technical sense for the patentee to have excluded embodiments where the murine sequence had been moved to a different location and rendered inactive.’

Judges:

Henry Carr J

Citations:

[2016] EWHC 87 (Pat)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc v Kymab Ltd and Another CA 28-Mar-2018
The claimant R now appealed from a finding that its two patents involving transgenic mice were invalid. The ‘in situ replacement’ failed to comply.
Held: The appeal succeeded. . .
At PatC – Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc v Kymab Ltd and Another CA 23-May-2018
Leave to appeal to Supreme Court refused. Other post judgment issues – form of order. . .
At PatC – Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc v Kymab Ltd SC 24-Jun-2020
SC Kymab alleged that the relevant patents are invalid for insufficiency because they did not enable the ordinary skilled person to work the claimed invention across the breadth of the claims. The patents were . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.566275

Brimscombe and Thrupp Parish Council (Local Government (Parish Council)): ICO 4 Jun 2015

The complainant has requested information relating to allotments within Brimscombe and Thrupp Parish. The Council refused to provide the complainant with the requested information on the grounds that her request is vexatious. The Commissioner has considered the representations made to him by Brimscombe and Thrupp Parish Council. He has decided that the Council has incorrectly applied section 14(1) of the FOIA to the complainant’s request. The Commissioner requires the Council to disclose to the complainant any recorded information it holds which is relevant to her request or it should issue a new refusal notice which is compliant with the provisions of section 17 of the FOIA. The public authority must take these steps 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.
FOI 14: Upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50558878

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.555445

Calderdale Council (Local Government (District Council)): ICO 3 Jun 2015

The complainant has requested to know the number of people’s records being stored and/or processed outside of data protection policies in the Children’s and Social Care Service. Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council (the council) initially advised that it did not hold the information, but during the Commissioner’s investigations it considered section 12 of the FOIA was engaged because to retrieve and extract the information would exceed the appropriate limit. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council is able to rely on section 12 of the FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
FOI 12: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50570289

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.555450

Nursing and Midwifery Council (Health (Other)): ICO 17 Mar 2015

The complainant has requested information relating to an individual witness statement. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) was correct to neither confirm nor deny that the information was held under section 40(5)(b)(i). The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken as a result of this decision notice.
FOI 40: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50565027

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.555235

Four Marks Parish Council (Local Government (Parish Council)): ICO 24 Jun 2015

The complainant has requested a copy of the minutes of a closed session of Four Marks Parish Council. The Commissioner’s decision is that Four Marks Parish Council has correctly applied the exception for internal communications at Regulation 12(4)(e) of the EIR to agenda item 14.162. He has also decided that agenda item 14.161 does not constitute environmental information as defined by regulation 2(1) of the EIR. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal. The Commissioner requires the public authority to either provide the information at agenda item 14.161 to the complainant or issue a valid refusal notice under the FOIA.
EIR 12(4)(e): Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FER0576056

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.555481

Office for Standards In Education (Education (College)): ICO 11 Mar 2015

The complainant has requested from Ofsted information in response to a statement by a named Ofsted officer, for details of how and when the complainant’s correspondence was given consideration. Ofsted refused to comply with the request for information on the basis that the request is vexatious in accordance with section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request is vexatious and that Ofsted has correctly applied section 14(1) of the FOIA to refuse the request. The Commissioner does not require Ofsted to take any steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2015/0072 dismissed.
FOI 14: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50566952

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.555236

Bolton Council (Local Government (District Council)): ICO 24 Jun 2015

The complainant has requested information on the costs of the council associated with a court case which he was involved in a number of years ago. Costs were awarded to the council at the end of the case. The complainant requests are for more information about how the council funds litigation, on its costs when in litigation and on any legal obligation which the council has to repay the money it spends. He asked if the money used to fund litigation is drawn from a third party fund. The council clarified that legal services, and litigation are paid for via the normal council budget, and therefore no information is held relating to any third party fund. Information is already published highlighting funds received by the council from normal means (i.e. local taxation and funds paid by central government) via its published accounts. The council therefore applied section 21 to that information. The Commissioner has decided that the council was also correct to apply section 21. The Commissioner’s decision is that the information the council does hold is subject to section 21 of the Act. He has also decided that on a balance of probabilities no further information is held by the council falling within the scope of the complainant’s request. The council did however fail to respond to the request within 20 working days and so the Commissioner’s decision is that it did not comply with section 10(1) in this respect. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
FOI 10: Upheld FOI 21: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50550023

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.555442

Queen Mary University of London (Education (University)): ICO 17 Mar 2015

The complainant has requested information relating to particular test results within a clinical trial carried out by Queen Mary University of London (QMUL). The Commissioner’s decision is that QMUL has correctly refused the request as the information is not held. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2015/0108 withdrawn.
FOI 1: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50557646

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.555244

Newcastle Under Lyme Council (Local Government (County Council)) FS50576108: ICO 22 Apr 2015

The complainant has requested information from Newcastle Under Lyme Borough Council (the council) relating to a specified business premises. The council has acknowledged the request, but not provided a substantive response. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has failed to comply with section 10 of the FOIA as the response was not provided within 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the public authority to comply with the request or issue a valid refusal notice as set out in section 17 of the FOIA. The public authority must take these steps 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.
FOI 10: Upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50576108

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.555341

Ross v Playboy Enterprises International, Inc: IPEC 13 Jun 2016

Claim for declarations and related relief arising out of a dispute between the parties over the registration of the domain name

Judges:

Miss Amanda Michaels sitting as a Deputy Enterprise Judge

Citations:

[2016] EWHC 1379 (IPEC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.565568

East Hampshire District Council (Local Government (District Council)): ICO 16 Mar 2015

The complainant has requested information relating to how the council used a delegated decision on a planning application. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has breached the requirements of Regulation 11(4) in that it did not respond to a request for review within 40 working days. He has also decided that the council did not comply with the requirements of Regulation 14(3) in that it applied Regulation 12(5)(f) in its initial refusal notice without explaining how or why the exception was appropriate. The Commissioner does not however require any steps.
EIR 11: Upheld EIR 14: Upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FER0559889

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.555191

Lincolnshire County Council (Local Government (County Council)): ICO 5 Mar 2015

The complainant requested various types of information in relation to a school building such as its design, works carried out, the impact as a result of a tidal surge and discussions between the school and Lincolnshire County Council (the council). The council refused part of the request under regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR, part under section 21 of the FOIA and regulation 6 of the EIR, it advised it did not hold some of the information and applied regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR to the remaining information as it considered that to provide the remaining information would be manifestly unreasonable. Following an internal review, the council withdrew its reliance of regulation 12(4)(b) and instead applied regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR to this part of the request. The council also provided a small amount of information but redacted third party details under regulation 13 of the EIR. During the Commissioner’s investigations the council also sought to rely on regulation 12(5)(d) of the EIR for the information withheld under regulation 12(5)(b). It also no longer relied on regulation 21 of the FOIA or regulation 6 of the EIR, advising it did not actually hold the information. The complainant was not satisfied that the council had withheld the information it had under regulation 12(5)(b) and (d) of the EIR, nor that it stated it did not hold any of the other requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council correctly relied on regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR and that, on the balance of probabilities, no further information is held by it. As the Commissioner found that regulation 12(5)(b) was engaged, he did not go on to consider regulation 12(5)(d) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
EIR 12(5)(b): Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FER0551773

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.555219

Information Commissioners Office (Local Government (Other)): ICO 9 Mar 2015

The complainant has requested information about the use of HM Revenue and Customs funds. The ICO asked the complainant to clarify their request but considered that the clarification the complainant provided did not sufficiently clarify the scope of the request. The ICO has said that under section 1(3) of the FOIA it is not obliged to respond to the request because it did not receive the further information that it had requested from the complainant; that would enable it to do so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the ICO has correctly applied section 1(3). In addition he considers that the ICO met its duty under section 16 of the FOIA to provide advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require the ICO to take any further steps.
FOI 1: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50562670

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.555210

Caerphilly County Borough Council (Local Government (Borough Council)): ICO 19 Mar 2015

The complainant requested copies of correspondence and minutes of meetings between Islwyn Indoor Bowls Club and Caerphilly County Borough Council (‘the Council’). The Council initially stated that it did not hold the information requested. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Council made a number of disclosures of information, subject to some personal data being withheld under section 40(2). The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold any additional information other than that which it has disclosed (subject to some information within the documents being withheld under section 40(2)). However, the Council breached section 10 of the FOIA in failing to provide the information within the statutory time for compliance. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
FOI 40: Partly upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50546005

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.555170

Eynsford Parish Council (Local Government (Parish Council)): ICO 23 Mar 2015

The complainant requested various items of information relating to railway sleepers placed along one edge of an access road into a car park owned by Eynsford Parish Council (‘the council’). The council said that the requests were vexatious under section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (‘the FOIA’). The Information Commissioner’s decision is that some of the requests were correctly refused using section 14(1) and the remaining requests were excepted under regulation 12(4)(b) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (‘the EIR’), which relates to manifestly unreasonable requests. The public interest favoured withholding this information. The Commissioner has found that the council breached regulation 14(2) and 14(3)(a) and (b) for failing to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
FOI 14: Not upheld EIR 12(4)(b): Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50552974

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.555193

Mid Devon District Council (Local Government (District Council)): ICO 17 Feb 2015

The complainant has made a request to Mid Devon District Council (‘the council’) for information relating to pre-application advice for solar parks and farms. The council refused the request under section 43(2) of the Freedom of Information Act (‘the FOIA’). The complainant subsequently requested that the council conduct an internal review. On failing to receive an internal review, the complainant submitted the matter to the Commissioner. On receipt of the complaint, the Commissioner decided that the request fell under the terms of the Environmental Information Regulations (‘the EIR’), which requires the council to conduct an internal review when this is requested. However, despite the Commissioner’s intervention the council has since failed to undertake this. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council failed to comply with the requirements of regulations 11(3) and 11(4) of the EIR. The Commissioner requires the council to conduct an internal review which meets the terms of the EIR.
EIR 11(3): Upheld EIR 11(4): Upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FER0540556

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.555118

Creech St Michael Parish Council (Local Government (Parish Council)): ICO 23 Feb 2015

The complainant requested from Creech St Michael Parish Council (‘the council’) a copy of a recording made at a meeting when the sale of an area of land known as Merlyn’s Copse was discussed. The council initially relied on the exception under regulation 12(5)(e) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (‘the EIR’) to withhold the information. This exception concerns prejudice to commercial interests. During the Commissioner’s investigation, the council clarified that it did not hold the information, which the complainant accepted. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council breached section 1(1)(a) and 10(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (‘the FOIA’) for failing to state that the information was not held. It also breached regulation 14(2) and 14(3)(a) of the EIR for failing to state that the information was not held. There were additional breaches of regulation 14(2), 14(5)(a) and (b) under the EIR because of the failure to inform the requester of his statutory rights to request an internal review and appeal to the Information Commissioner.
FOI 1: Upheld FOI 10: Upheld EIR 14: Upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FER0550024

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.555074

East Hampshire District Council (Local Government (District Council)): ICO 23 Mar 2015

The complainant has requested information from East Hampshire District Council (‘the council’) about settlement policy boundaries. The council responded that no information was held, which the complainant subsequently disputed. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council does not hold the requested information. However, the council failed to provide an internal review within forty working days of this being requested, and therefore breached regulation 11(4). The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken
FOI 11: Upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FER0562751

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.555192

Health and Safety Executive (Education (Other)): ICO 23 Mar 2015

The complainant has requested information relating to the Elgin blowout. The HSE refused to disclose the requested information under section 30(1)(b) FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the HSE has correctly applied section 30(1)(b) FOIA in this case. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
FOI 30: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50566409

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.555202

Oxford Cambridge and RSA Examinations (Education (Other)): ICO 5 Feb 2015

The complainant has requested from Oxford Cambridge and RSA (‘OCR’) information concerning a statement that was made by an employee at the OCR about the change in the English Literature GCSE curriculum. The Commissioner’s decision is that OCR has provided the complainant with all the recorded information that falls within the scope of the request. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take no steps
FOI 1: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50558529

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.555137

Down District Council (Local Government (District Council)): ICO 12 Mar 2015

The complainant has requested copies of two handwritten witness statements. Down District Council said the requested information was exempt from disclosure under section 40(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council correctly applied section 40(2) and no steps are required. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
FOI 40: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50554853

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.555189

Yarm Town Council (Local Government (Town Council)): ICO 17 Feb 2015

The complainant has made a request to Yarm Town Council (‘the council’) for information relating to the council’s decision to seek legal advice. The council provided some information in response, but with contact information redacted under the exemption provided by section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act (‘the FOIA’). The complainant subsequently contested the council’s application of section 40(2), and whether all held information had been otherwise disclosed. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has correctly withheld information under section 40(2), and has otherwise provided all held information that falls within the scope of the request. However, the council provided its response outside of 20 working days, and therefore breached the requirement of section 10(1). The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
FOI 10: Upheld FOI 40: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50531303

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.555159

Mid Suffolk District Council (Local Government (District Council)): ICO 11 Mar 2015

The complainant requested information about professional subscriptions from Mid Suffolk District Council (the ‘Council’). The Council did not respond within the statutory 20 working days prescribed by FOIA. The complainant requested that a decision notice be issued by the Information Commissioner recording the delay. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has breached section 10(1) of FOIA by issuing its response late but, as a substantive response has been provided to the complainant, he does not require any remedial steps to be taken.
FOI 10: Upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50563861

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.555221

Greater London Authority (Local Government (District Council)): ICO 10 Mar 2015

The complainant has requested the GLA to disclose a full copy of the original Development Agreement dated 19 April 2011 and a full certified copy of the Deed of Variation dated 10 December 2013 including appendices relating to the Blackwall Reach Compulsory Purchase Order. The GLA disclosed some information but informed the complainant that it did not hold the version of the Development Agreement it required. For this element of the request the GLA applied regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR. During the Commissioner’s investigation it came to light that the version of the Development Agreement the complainant required was still held by the GLA’s predecessor the HCA. It was therefore accepted that the HCA in fact holds the requested information on behalf of the GLA. At the time of writing this notice, the GLA had obtained the requested information from the HCA but had not issued a fresh response to the complainant. The Commissioner therefore requires the HCA to take the following steps to ensure compliance with this legislation: the GLA should issue a fresh response in relation to the copy of the Development Agreement obtained from the HCA, that does not cite regulation 12(4)(a). In terms of how the request was handled, the Commissioner has found that the GLA was in breach of 11 of the EIR in this case.
EIR 12(4)(a): Upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FER0555755

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.555198

Vertical Leisure Ltd v Poleplus Ltd and Another: IPEC 27 Mar 2015

Claims were made alleging infringement of domain name and trade mark rights in accessories for use with pole dancing kits.

Judges:

Hacon J

Citations:

[2015] EWHC 841 (IPEC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Lumley v Gye 1853
Inducing breach of contract is a Tort
An opera singer (Miss Wagner) and the defendant theatre owner were joint wrongdoers. They had a common design that the opera singer should break her contract with the plaintiff theatre owner, refuse to sing in the plaintiff’s theatre and instead . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.544910

Emerson Electric Co, John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc, Todd A Westley, Richard W Ballas, Richard R Bowles, Brian A Mitchell and Shawn M Chawgo (Patent): IPEC 17 Feb 2015

An uncontested application was filed by the proprietor Emerson Electric Co under rule 10(2) of the Patents Rules 2007. As a result, it was found that Shawn M Chawgo should be mentioned as a joint inventor along with Todd A Westley, Richard W Ballas, Richard R Bowles and Brian A Mitchell in the granted patent for the invention and directed that an addendum slip mentioning him as a joint inventor be prepared for the granted patent for the invention.

Judges:

Mrs S Eaves

Citations:

[2015] UKIntelP o07615, EP 2176928

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Patents Act 1977 13(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.545461

Begraj and Another v Secretary of State for Justice: QBD 12 Feb 2015

This Appeal raises a point of public importance, namely the scope and applicability of the doctrine of judicial immunity under section 9 (3) HRA 1998; and whether, in this case, that statutory immunity bars the Appellants’ cause of action against the Secretary of State in respect of the consequences of a meeting between the police and two members of the judiciary at which information was imparted by the police which ultimately led to the collapse of a long running trial in the Employment Tribunal.

Judges:

His Honour Judge McKenna

Citations:

[2015] EWHC 250 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Human Rights

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.542731

William Mark Corporation and Another v Gift House International Ltd: IPEC 22 Aug 2014

The claimant said that the defendants imported model airplanes infringing the claimant’s patents, and registered community designs. The defendant responded that the patents were invalid.
Held: Some but not all of the patent claims were valid, and the goods were infringing.

Judges:

Hacon HHJ

Citations:

[2014] EWHC 2845 (IPEC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Patents Act 1977 69

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Pozzoli Spa v BDMO Sa and Another CA 22-Jun-2007
The patentee had invented a method for storing CDs. The patentee sought leave to appeal a finding that its patent was invalid, and if successful, to appeal a finding that the defendant’s apparatus was not infringing.
Held: The application for . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.536027

Omnibill (Pty) Ltd v EGPSXXX Ltd and Another: IPEC 17 Nov 2014

The claimant alleged that the defendant had copied photographs from the claimant’s escort website and used them on its own. The parties disputed the effect of the defendant’s web hosting servers not being located within the UK.

Judges:

Birss J

Citations:

[2014] EWHC 3762 (IPEC), [2015] ECDR 1

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.538780

DKH Retail Ltd v H Young (Operations) Ltd: IPEC 8 Dec 2014

The parties disputed the designs of two overlapping parts of a gilet. The claimant (‘DKH’) claims UK unregistered design right and unregistered Community design in relation to (1) the front central portion and hood of its ‘Academy’ gilet sold under the SUPERDRY brand name and (2) the hood alone. DKH alleges that the defendant (‘H Young’) has infringed those rights by the importation and sale of its ‘Glaisdale’ gilet sold under the ANIMAL brand name.

Judges:

Hacon HHJ

Citations:

[2014] EWHC 4034 (IPEC), [2015] FSR 21

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.539763

Global Flood Defence Systems Ltd and Another v Van Den Noort Innovations Bv and Others: IPEC 29 Jan 2015

Application by the claimants for summary judgment in relation to their allegation against the first and second defendants of unjustified threats of proceedings for patent infringement.

Judges:

Hacon HHJ

Citations:

[2015] EWHC 153 (IPEC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.541971

A v B: SCS 25 Jan 1540

Gif the creditour makis and constitutis ane assignay and cessioner, to ony debt auchtand to him, and makis intimatioun of the samin assignatioun to the debtour, the samin is sufficient in all time cuming to seclude him fra all actioun that he had, or may have, agains the said debtour, albeit he that is assignay mak na inimatioun of the said assignatioun to the debtour.

Citations:

[1540] Mor 843

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Contract

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.543979

Hamilton v Hamilton: SCS 11 Feb 1540

Na exception of iniquitie, nullitie, or uther quhatsumever, may be proponit or alledgit contrare the executioun of an decrete-arbitral lauchfullie gevin: Bot the proponer thairof sould use and alledge the samin be way of actioun gif he pleisis for reduction and retractatioun of the said decrete.

Citations:

[1540] Mor 662

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Litigation Practice

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.543980

Shane Huia Matenga v The Queen: 13 Mar 2009

(Supreme Court of New Zealand) Whether to set aside jury’s verdict – miscarriage of justice

Judges:

Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath and Wilson JJ

Citations:

[2009] NZSC 18, [2009] 3 NZLR 145, (2009) 24 CRNZ 849

Links:

NZLII

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Noye, Kenneth, Regina v CACD 22-Mar-2011
The prisoner appealed against his conviction for murder on reference from the CCRC. There were new doubts about the reliabiity of the expert forensic expert.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. Dr H’s evidence did not impinge on the essential . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.430822

Potter v Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd: 20 Mar 1906

(High Court of Australia) (affirmed)

Judges:

Griffith C.J., Barton and O’Connor JJ

Citations:

(1906) 3 CLR 479, [1906] HCA 88

Links:

Austlii

Jurisdiction:

Australia

Citing:

Appeal from – Potter v Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd 21-Aug-1905
VLR (Supreme Court – Victoria) International law – Conflict of laws – Tort committed abroad – Jurisdiction – Patent in New South Wales – Infringement by Victorian company in New South Wales of New South Wales . .

Cited by:

Mentioned – Lucasfilm Ltd and Others v Ainsworth and Another SC 27-Jul-2011
The claimant had produced the Star War films which made use of props, in particular a ‘Stormtrooper’ helmet designed by the defendant. The defendant had then himself distributed models of the designs he had created. The appellant obtained judgment . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Jurisdiction, Intellectual Property

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.442607