PF International Ltd v The Financial Conduct Authority (Financial Services): UTTC 8 Jan 2020

FINANCIAL SERVICES – strike out application – reference of Supervisory Notice removing regulated activity of exercising lender’s rights and duties under regulated credit agreements – firm’s Part 4A permission subsequently cancelled for failure to file regulatory returns – whether reference should be struck out on the basis that it has no reasonable prospect of succeeding – yes – Rule 8 (3) (c) The Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008.

Citations:

[2020] UKUT 2 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Financial Services

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.650127

Athena Capital Fund Sicav – Fis Sca v Crownmark Ltd: ComC 24 Jul 2019

Claims management conference – Claimant’s applications for partial summary judgment and the striking out of the Defendant’s counterclaim.

Judges:

Christopher Hancock QC (sitting as a Judge of the High Court)

Citations:

[2019] EWHC 1952 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.642064

HM Treasury (Central Government): ICO 4 Nov 2019

The complainant requested information relating to how much debt the UK owes to foreign governments including foreign sovereign entities. The public authority concluded that it did not hold any information matching the scope of the complainant’s request. The Commissioner accepted that on the balance of probabilities the public authority does not hold the information requested by the complainant.
FOI 1: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50812011

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.650310

Bluechipworld Sales and Marketing Ltd v Revenue and Customs (VAT, PAYE and NIC – Requirement To Give Security): FTTTx 22 Nov 2019

VAT, PAYE and NIC – Requirement to give security – Whether decisions ones that could not reasonably have been arrived at – No – Appeals dismissed

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 705 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT, Income Tax, Taxes – Other

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.646879

Bradford Metropolitan District Council (Local Government (District Council)): ICO 11 Mar 2015

The complainant has requested the shotgun licences and firearms certificates of named individuals held by the council in accordance with the Deed relating to sporting rights on Ilkley Moor (2008) (the Deed). The council confirmed that the information was held in relation to some of the named individuals, but refused to provide copies of the certificates and licences as it considered that the information had been provided in confidence and so section 41 applied. In his role as dual regulator of both the FOIA and the Data Protection Act 1998 (the DPA), the Commissioner has a duty to protect personal data where necessary. He finds that the information in this case is personal data, and that the council should have applied section 40(2). His decision therefore is that although the council was correct to withhold the information, the reason for doing so is section 40(2) rather than section 41. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
FOI 40: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50551681

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.555163

P N Bewley Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Stamp Duty : Land Tax): FTTTx 28 Jan 2019

STAMP DUTY LAND TAX – bungalow and plot of land acquired with planning permission for demolition and building of new dwelling on site – whether higher rates of SDLT in Schedule 4ZA FA 2003 apply – whether bungalow building ‘suitable for use’ as a dwelling on date of transaction – held not so suitable – self-assessment as amended by HMRC reduced to remove higher rate charge and to reflect non-residential rate.

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 65 (TC), [2019] SFTD 611, [2019] STI 1057

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Stamp Duty

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.635674

Revenue and Customs v Tooth: CA 15 May 2019

Participation in tax avoidance scheme – carry back of losses.

Judges:

Lord Justice Floyd

Citations:

[2019] EWCA Civ 826

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Revenue and Customs v Tooth UTTC 7-Feb-2018
INCOME TAX – discovery assessment – whether ‘discovery’ – whether insufficiency of tax brought about deliberately . .

Cited by:

Appeal from (CA) – Revenue and Customs v Tooth SC 14-May-2021
Issues of general importance about the power of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (in this context ‘the Revenue’) to make what is generally known as a discovery assessment. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Income Tax

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.637328

Department for Education (Central Government): ICO 3 Jul 2018

The complainant has requested information relating to financial and governance issues at Wakefield City Academies Trust (WCAT). The DfE responded to the request by refusing to disclose the requested information under sections 36, 40 and 43 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DfE is entitled to rely on section 36 of the FOIA to withhold the requested information. She therefore does not require any further action to be taken.
FOI 36: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKICO fs50713498

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.621312

Revenue and Customs v Tooth: UTTC 7 Feb 2018

INCOME TAX – discovery assessment – whether ‘discovery’ – whether insufficiency of tax brought about deliberately

Judges:

The Honourable Mr. Justice Marcus Smith, Judge Charles Hellier

Citations:

[2018] UKUT 38 (TCC), [2018] BTC 505, [2018] STI 1052, [2018] STC 824

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Revenue and Customs v Tooth CA 15-May-2019
Participation in tax avoidance scheme – carry back of losses. . .
At UTTC – Revenue and Customs v Tooth SC 14-May-2021
Issues of general importance about the power of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (in this context ‘the Revenue’) to make what is generally known as a discovery assessment. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Income Tax

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.604789

Gibson, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice: SC 24 Jan 2018

The appellant had been sentenced to 5 years imprisonment and a confiscation order pounds 5.4m with six years in default. Small payments were made later by his receivers, but the interest had taken the total sums due over pounds 8m at the time of payments. The Court was asked say whether when calculating the credit against time spent, the sums were as against the sums originally due, or the sums at the time of payment.
Held: The claimant’s appeal was allowed. At the time, the 1994 Act applied, under which the interest was to be treated as part of the amount to be recovered. s.79(2) expressly say that the days to be deducted are to be the number which bear the same proportion to the total default term imposed (by the Crown Court) as the part payments bear ‘to so much of the said sum . . as was due at the time the period of detention was imposed’. At the time the Crown Court imposed the default term, there was as yet no interest accrued at all. The words of a penalty statute are not to be strained to achieve a prejudicial outcome.

Judges:

Lord Mance, Deputy President, Lord Reed, Lord Carnwath, Lord Hughes, Lady Black

Citations:

[2018] UKSC 2, [2018] Lloyd’s Rep FC 195, [2018] 2 All ER 478, [2018] 1 Cr App R (S) 51, [2018] 1 WLR 629, UKSC 2016/0052

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Summary, WLRD, SC, SC Summary, SC Summary Video, SC 2017 Dec 5 am Video, SC 2017 Dec 5 pm Video

Statutes:

Magistrates Courts Act 1980 79(2), Drug Trafficking Act 1994, Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing Act) 2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At Admn – Gibson, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice Admn 4-Sep-2013
. .
Appeal from – Gibson, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice CA 11-Nov-2015
‘The issue in the case is whether the words ‘the said sum . . as was due at the time the period of detention was imposed’ in section 79(2) of the Magistrates’ Court Act (MCA) 1980 should be construed in the case of confiscation orders made under the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Sentencing, Magistrates

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.603119

Hysaj and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: SC 21 Dec 2017

The court was asked whether the misrepresentations made by the appellants in their applications for United Kingdom citizenship made the grant of that citizenship a nullity, rather than rendering them liable to be deprived of that citizenship under sections 40 and 40A of the British Nationality Act 1981. The respondent had now asked that the appeals be allowed by consent.
Held: His reasons were largely been adopted by the Court.
The conflicting decisions had been difficult to reconcile and created uncertainty, and Akhtar and Bibi were overruled.
The Appellants were British citizens by naturalisation under section 6(1) of the British Nationality Act 1981 and that that citizenship remained valid unless and until a formal deprivation order is made pursuant to section 40(3) of the 1981 Act.

Judges:

Lady Hale, President, Lord Kerr, Lord Wilson, Lord Hughes, Lord Hodge

Citations:

[2017] UKSC 82, [2018] 2 All ER 471, [2018] INLR 279, [2018] Imm AR 699, [2018] 1 WLR 221, UKSC 2016/0209

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary

Statutes:

British Nationality Act 1981 6(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Hysaj and Others, Regina (On The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 26-Nov-2015
Each of the three applicamts having been found to have lied in order to obtain British Nationality, now appealed against a decision that they were not in fact Britsh citizens. . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Sultan Mahmood CA 1978
The applicant appealed refusal of his writ of habeas corpus. He had been arrested pending removal to Pakistan. He said that he had been registered a British Citizen under the 1948 Act. Whilst in Pakistan he had substituted his own photograph for . .
Appeal from – Hysaj v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 16-Dec-2014
Applications for extensions of time to file an appeal should be taken the same as for applications for relief from sanctions, and should attract the same rigorous approach. There is no good reason to have a different approach for public law cases. . .
Overruled – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Parvaz Akhtar CA 1981
The applicant appealed refusal of a writ of habeas corpus. He was to be removed as an illegal immigrant. He had entered claiming to be registered as a British citizen but under somebody else’s identity.
Held: The Secretary of State had had no . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Ejaz CA 7-Dec-1993
The question was whether the Secretary of State was entitled to treat a woman, who had obtained naturalisation as the wife of a British citizen, as an illegal entrant on the basis that her husband later turned out not in fact to be a British . .
Overruled – Bibi and others v Entry Clearance Officer, Dhaka CA 18-Jul-2007
The deceased had come to live in the UK and obtain citizenship under somebody else’s identity. After his death his wife and children sought clearance to come to live here.
Held: Her appeal failed. The residence of her late husband was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Administrative

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.601874

Michalak v General Medical Council and Others: SC 1 Nov 2017

Dr M had successfully challenged her dismissal and recovered damages for unfair dismissal and race discrimination. In the interim, Her employer HA had reported the dismissal to the respondent who continued their proceedings despite the decision in her favour. The GMC now said that the availability of judicial review excluded her right to commence proceedings before the Employment Tribunal by virtue of section 120 of the 2010 Act.
Held: The GMC’s appeal failed. Judicial review in the context of the present case is not in the nature of an appeal. Nor is it a remedy provided by reason of an enactment.

Judges:

Baroness Hale of Richmond PSC, Lord Mance DPSC, Lord Kerr of Tonaghmore;, Lord Wilson, Lord Hughes JJSC

Citations:

[2017] UKSC 71, [2017] 1 WLR 4193, (2018) 159 BMLR 1, [2018] 1 All ER 463, [2018] ICR 49, [2018] IRLR 60, [2017] WLR(D) 734, UKSC 2016/0084

Links:

Bailii, WLRD, SC, SC Summary, SC Summary Video, SC 2017 07 04 am Video, SC 2017 07 04 pm Video, Bailii Summary

Statutes:

Equality Act 2010 120(7), Senior Courts Act 1981 31(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At EAT – The General Medical Council v Dickson, Haywood, Dr Michalak EAT 25-Nov-2014
The Claimant complained to an Employment Tribunal that she had been discriminated against by the GMC (a qualifications body). The GMC contended that section 120(7) Equality Act precluded jurisdiction, since judicial review afforded an appeal for the . .
See Also – Michalak, Regina (on The Application of) v General Medical Council Admn 22-Jul-2011
Dr M sought judicial review of a decision by the respondent to continue its investigation of her by the Fitness to Practice panel. That panel, after hearing substantial evidence had to restart on the panel medical member was unable to continue with . .
Cited – Kennedy v The Charity Commission SC 26-Mar-2014
The claimant journalist sought disclosure of papers acquired by the respondent in its conduct of enquiries into the charitable Mariam appeal. The Commission referred to an absolute exemption under section 32(2) of the 2000 Act, saying that the . .
Cited – Pham v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 25-Mar-2015
The court was asked: ‘whether the Secretary of State was precluded under the British Nationality Act 1981 from making an order depriving the appellant of British citizenship because to do so would render him stateless. This turns on whether (within . .
Cited – Keyu and Others v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and Another SC 25-Nov-2015
The Court was asked whether the respondents should be required to hold a public inquiry into a controversial series of events in 1948, when a Scots Guards patrol was alleged to shot and killed 24 unarmed civilians in a village called Batang Kali, in . .
Appeal from – Michalak v The General Medical Council and Others CA 23-Mar-2016
The court considered the remedies and routes of appeal available to individuals who claim to have suffered from discrimination, victimisation, harassment or detriment in the treatment that they have received from a qualifications body. In . .
Cited – Khan v General Medical Council CA 11-Apr-1994
The appellant’s application for full registration as a qualified medical practitioner had been refused by the GMC after a five-year maximum period of limited registration. His application for full registration in accordance with section 25 of the . .
Cited – Tariquez-Zaman v General Medical Council EAT 20-Dec-2006
EAT Race Discrimination – Discrimination by other bodies
Practice and Procedure – Amendment
(a) The Employment Tribunal correctly held it had no jurisdiction to hear Claimant’s case brought under the . .
Dictum disapproved – Jooste v General Medical Council and Others EAT 4-Jul-2012
EAT RACE DISCRIMINATION – Indirect
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Appellate jurisdiction/reasons/Burns-Barke
Costs
The Employment Judge correctly struck out the Claimant’s claims as having no . .
Cited – The Secretary of State for Health, Dorset County Council v The Personal Representative of Christopher Beeson CA 18-Dec-2002
The deceased had been adjudged by his local authority to have deprived himself of his house under the Regulations. Complaint was made that the procedure did not allow an appeal and therefore deprived him of his rights under article 6.
Held: . .
Cited – Cart v The Upper Tribunal SC 21-Jun-2011
Limitations to Judicial Reviw of Upper Tribunal
Three claimants sought to challenge decisions of various Upper Tribunals by way of judicial review. In each case the request for judicial review had been first refused on the basis that having been explicitly designated as higher courts, the proper . .
Cited – Assicurazioni Generali Spa v Arab Insurance Group (BSC) CA 13-Nov-2002
Rehearing/Review – Little Difference on Appeal
The appellant asked the Court to reverse a decision on the facts reached in the lower court.
Held: The appeal failed (Majority decision). The court’s approach should be the same whether the case was dealt with as a rehearing or as a review. . .
Cited – Datec Electronics Holdings Ltd and others v United Parcels Services Ltd HL 16-May-2007
The defendants had taken on the delivery of a quantity of the claimant’s computers. The equipment reached one depot, but then was lost or stolen. The parties disputed whether the Convention rules applied. UPS said that the claimant had agreed that . .
Cited – In re P and Others, (Adoption: Unmarried couple) (Northern Ireland); In re G HL 18-Jun-2008
The applicants complained that as an unmarried couple they had been excluded from consideration as adopters.
Held: Northern Ireland legislation had not moved in the same way as it had for other jurisdictions within the UK. The greater . .

Cited by:

Cited – Haralambous, Regina (on The Application of) v Crown Court at St Albans and Another SC 24-Jan-2018
The appellant challenged by review the use of closed material first in the issue of a search warrant, and subsequently to justify the retention of materials removed during the search.
Held: The appeal failed. No express statutory justification . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health Professions, Judicial Review

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.598455

Department for Education (Central Government): ICO 24 Oct 2016

The complainant has requested information from the Department for Education (The ‘DFE’) relating to details of pre – 2010 academy pledges which had not been fulfilled. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DFE did not deal with the request for information in accordance with section 10 of the FOIA in the following way: It failed to provide a response to the request within that statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further steps.
FOI 10: Upheld

Citations:

[2016] UKICO FS50645845

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.572858

Haralambous v St Albans Crown Court and Another: Admn 22 Apr 2016

This judicial review raised for express decision whether a person whose premises have been searched and whose property seized under a search warrant must have enough information grounding the warrant to judge its lawfulness and the retention of the material seized under it. In this case the information before the justice of the peace granting the warrant was later redacted to such an extent that what is available to the claimant is not a sufficient legal basis for it or the retention of property seized. Courts below have authorised the redactions on public interest grounds, but the claimant contends that this constitutes a closed material procedure which is without statutory foundation.
Held: Review refused.

Judges:

Burnett LJ, Cranston J

Citations:

[2016] EWHC 916 (Admin), [2016] WLR(D) 209, [2016] Lloyd’s Rep FC 412, [2016] Crim LR 664, [2016] 2 Cr App R 17, (2016) 180 JP 428, [2016] 1 WLR 3073, 180 JP 428

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Carnduff v Inspector Rock and Chief Constable West Midlands Police CA 11-May-2001
The claimant was a police informer. Over several years he had given and been paid for information. He claimed that on one occasion he had given information which had led to the arrest of a major criminal, but the police denied that any information . .
Cited – Al Rawi and Others v The Security Service and Others SC 13-Jul-2011
The claimant pursued a civil claim for damages, alleging complicity of the respondent in his torture whilst in the custody of foreign powers. The respondent sought that certain materials be available to the court alone and not to the claimant or the . .
Cited – Cronin, Regina (on The Application of) v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police and Another Admn 20-Nov-2002
The applicant had had his premises searched. He sought to challenge the basis on which search warrant had been granted. He argued that under the Convention, it was necessary for the magistrates to provide a written record of the reasons for granting . .
Cited – Energy Financing Team Ltd and others v The Director of the Serious Fraud Office, Bow Street Magistrates Court Admn 22-Jul-2005
The claimants sought to set aside warrants and executions under them to provide assistance to a foreign court investigating alleged unlawful assistance to companies in Bosnia Herzegovina.
Held: The issue of such a warrant was a serious step. . .
Cited – Gittins v Central Criminal Court Admn 14-Jan-2011
The claimant sought judicial review of decisions to issues search warrants to HMRC in respect of his premises. HMRC wanted to look for evidence of tax avoidance schemes which it thought might be unlawful. Until the morning of the hearing, HMRC . .
Cited – Commissioner of Police for The Metropolis v Bangs Admn 3-Mar-2014
Where the police were objecting to the disclosure to a person affected of information relied upon before a magistrate to obtain a search and seizure warrant, the magistrates’ court was not functus officio, and any challenge to the withholding was an . .
Cited – AHK and Others v Secretary of State for The Home Department Admn 7-Jun-2013
. .
Cited – British Sky Broadcasting Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v The Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis SC 12-Mar-2014
The court was asked as to the powers of Magistrates hearing an application for a search warrant to receive excluded or special procedure material which had not been disclosed to the respondent. The court had overturned an order made by the district . .
Cited – Golfrate Property Management Ltd and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v The Crown Court At Southwark and Another Admn 25-Mar-2014
The claimants sought to have set aside search and seizure warrants obtained to further enquiries into suspected breaches of EU sanctions against ZANU-PF of Zimbabwe. They alleged non-disclosure and misrepresentation.
Held: A decision to claim . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Haralambous, Regina (on The Application of) v Crown Court at St Albans and Another SC 24-Jan-2018
The appellant challenged by review the use of closed material first in the issue of a search warrant, and subsequently to justify the retention of materials removed during the search.
Held: The appeal failed. No express statutory justification . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Police, Magistrates

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.562904

Hysaj and Others, Regina (On The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 26 Nov 2015

Each of the three applicamts having been found to have lied in order to obtain British Nationality, now appealed against a decision that they were not in fact Britsh citizens.

Judges:

Kitchin, Floyd, Sales LJJ

Citations:

[2015] EWCA Civ 1195, [2015] WLR(D) 482, [2016] 1 WLR 673

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Immigration Act 1971 1(2) 3(1)(b), British Nationality Act 1981

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Hysaj v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 16-Dec-2014
Applications for extensions of time to file an appeal should be taken the same as for applications for relief from sanctions, and should attract the same rigorous approach. There is no good reason to have a different approach for public law cases. . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Hysaj and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 21-Dec-2017
The court was asked whether the misrepresentations made by the appellants in their applications for United Kingdom citizenship made the grant of that citizenship a nullity, rather than rendering them liable to be deprived of that citizenship under . .
Cited – London Borough of Hamlets v Al Ahmed QBD 26-Mar-2019
The respondent had requested a review of his housing priority need. He had applied to the Authority under the homelessness provisions of the 1996 Act, the Council decided that he was not in priority need. The solicitors then acting for him requested . .
Cited – Al Ahmed v London Borough of Tower Hamlets CA 30-Jan-2020
‘This case concerns the approach to be adopted by the court towards the assessment of a ‘good reason’ for delay in bringing an appeal under s.204 of the Housing Act 1996 (‘the 1996 Act’) against an adverse review decision under the homelessness . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Administrative, Immigration

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.555005

LL v The Lord Chancellor: QBD 11 Nov 2015

The claimant sought damages after being wrongfully imprisoned for contempt. The judge imposing the sentence: ‘should have recused herself from hearing the committal application, that the procedure adopted in relation to deciding whether there was a breach of the order of 21 March 2014 was incorrect, that there was insufficient evidence to justify a finding that the Claimant was in deliberate breach of the order and, finally, that the procedure adopted in the sentencing exercise was flawed.’
Held: The claim failed: ‘the bar for establishing a claim for damages in this context is necessarily set at a high level. I do not consider that the circumstances of this case cross the threshold thus established.’

Judges:

Foskett J

Citations:

[2015] EWHC 3273 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Torts – Other, Contempt of Court

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.555026

Total Mauritius Ltd v Abdurrahman: PC 11 Nov 2015

Mauritius – The company appealed against an award of punitive damages as a severance allowance on the termination of the respondent’s employment. He was said to have competed with his employers business whilst employed by them. Gheld: The court discussed the distinction between ‘faute serieuse’ and ‘faute grave’ under Mauritian law.

Judges:

Lady Hale, Lord Wilson, Lord Hughes

Citations:

[2015] UKPC 45

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Commonwealth, Employment, Damages

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.554670

The Queen v Crawford: PC 11 Nov 2015

From the Court of Appeal of the Cayman Islands – The crown appealed against the quashing of the respondent’s conviction for possession of an unlicensed firearm. A gun was found where he had been seen to discard a gun whilst being chased. The forensic evidence did not connect him to it.
Held: The appeal was rejected: ‘Neither in respect of the photographic evidence nor in respect of the DNA evidence were the criticisms of the Court of Appeal justified. The trial judge approached the case in respect of both matters correctly. There was no basis for departing from his verdict, which was based on his assessment of PC Bradley’s evidence and the elements of support available for it. ‘

Judges:

Lady Hale, Lord Kerr, Lord Reed, Lord Hughes, Lord Toulson

Citations:

[2015] UKPC 44

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Bland v Ross (Ship Julia) (Admiralty) PC 1860
The court considered the care needed in an appellate court in reversing a decision on the facts. Lord Kingsdown said that: ‘They, who require this Board, under such circumstances to reverse a decision of the court below upon a point of this . .
Cited – SS Hontestroom v SS Sagaporack HL 1927
The court discussed the weight to be given by an appellate court to findings of fact made by the court of first instance.
Held: Not to have seen the witnesses puts appellate judges in a permanent position of disadvantage as against the trial . .
Cited – Powell v Streatham Manor Nursing Home HL 1935
Where the Judge at the trial has come to a conclusion upon the question which of the witnesses, whom he has seen and heard, are trustworthy and which are not, he is normally in a better position to judge of this matter than the appellate tribunal . .
Cited – Benmax v Austin Motor Co Ltd HL 1955
Except for cases which are expressly limited to questions of law, an appellant is entitled to appeal from the Court of Session to the House against any finding, whether it be a finding of law, a finding of fact or a finding involving both law and . .
Cited – Regina v Turnbull and Another etc CCA 9-Jun-1976
The defendants appealed against their convictions which had been based upon evidence of visual identification.
Held: Identification evidence can be unreliable, and courts must take steps to reduce injustice. The judge should warn the jury of . .
Cited – Whitehouse v Jordan HL 17-Dec-1980
The plaintiff sued for brain damage suffered at birth by use of forceps at the alleged professional negligence of his doctor. The Court of Appeal had reversed the judge’s finding in his favour.
Held: In this case most of the evidence at issue . .
Cited – Regina v Browning CACD 1991
A witness by the name of Hughes said that he was overtaken at considerable speed by a Renault 25 with a registration number beginning C7.
Held: The peculiar risks of mistaken facial identification do not apply to the same extent to evidence of . .
Cited – Regina v Luttrell; Regina v Dawson; Regina v Hamberger CACD 28-May-2004
The defendants appealed saying the court had wrongly admitted the evidence of a lip reader.
Held: Lip-reading was a recognised skill, and provided the judge gave appropriate warnings to a jury, recognising the possibility that evidence may not . .
Cited – Hampton and Another v The Crown CACD 30-Jul-2004
The defendants appealed against their convictions for murder. Evidence had been admitted as to the identification of a car from a memory of the registration mark by a witness.
Held: The evidence was properly admitted without a Turnbull . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.554669

Greece v Commission: ECFI 11 Nov 2015

ECJ Judgment – EAGGF – Guarantee Section – EAGF and EAFRD – Expenditure excluded from financing – Reasonable time – Lack of key controls – Extrapolation of findings of failures

Citations:

T-550/13, [2015] EUECJ T-550/13, ECLI: EU: T: 2015 835

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

European

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.554651

Gibson, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice: CA 11 Nov 2015

‘The issue in the case is whether the words ‘the said sum . . as was due at the time the period of detention was imposed’ in section 79(2) of the Magistrates’ Court Act (MCA) 1980 should be construed in the case of confiscation orders made under the Drug Trafficking Act 1994 (DTA) as meaning either:
i) the sum due when the default term was fixed by the Crown Court judge (the appellant’s case); or
ii) the sum due when the default term was activated by the Magistrates’ Court (the respondent’s case).’
Held: Part payments had to be taken into account, and to give effect to that conclusion it read two additional words into section 79(2) so that it read ‘Where, before or after a period of imprisonment . . has been imposed . . ‘

Judges:

Lewison, Treacey, Gloster LJJ

Citations:

[2015] EWCA Civ 1148, [2016] 4 All ER 244, [2016] Lloyd’s Rep FC 11, [2017] 1 WLR 1115

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Magistrates Courts Act 1980, Drug Trafficking Act 1994

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Gibson, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice Admn 4-Sep-2013
. .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Gibson, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice SC 24-Jan-2018
The appellant had been sentenced to 5 years imprisonment and a confiscation order pounds 5.4m with six years in default. Small payments were made later by his receivers, but the interest had taken the total sums due over pounds 8m at the time of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.554608

Dyson v Commission: ECFI 11 Nov 2015

Judgment – Directive 2010/30/EU – Indication by labelling and standard product information of the consumption of energy and other resources by energy-related products – Delegated Regulation (EU) No 665/2013 – Competence of the Commission – Equal treatment – Obligation to state reasons

Citations:

T-544/13, [2015] EUECJ T-544/13, ECLI:EU:T:2015:836

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Directive 2010/30/EU, Delegated Regulation (EU) No 665/2013

Jurisdiction:

European

Consumer

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.554649

Re AFR: CoP 11 Nov 2015

Application by the Public Guardian to discharge two joint and several deputies for property and affairs on the grounds that they have behaved in a way that has contravened their authority or is not in their father’s best interests.

Judges:

Lush SJ

Citations:

[2015] EWCOP 73

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Agency

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.554599

Klausner Holz Niedersachsen v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen: ECJ 11 Nov 2015

ECJ Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Articles 107 TFEU and 108 TFEU – State aid – Aid granted in breach of Article 108(3) TFEU – Decision of a Member State court establishing the validity of the contract granting that aid – Res judicata – Interpretation in conformity with EU law – Principle of effectiveness

Citations:

C-505/14, [2015] EUECJ C-505/14, ECLI:EU:C:2015:742

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

TFEU 107

Jurisdiction:

European

European

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.554657

Hely-Hutchinson, Regina (on The Application of) v Revenue and Customs: Admn 11 Nov 2015

The Claimant sought Judicial Review of four closure notices rejecting the Claimant’s claim for capital losses, advanced in relation to the four tax years.
The Claimant asserted a legitimate expectation to claim those capital losses, in reliance on guidance published by the Commissioners in 2003. The Claimant contends that his legitimate expectation cannot and should not be frustrated by the Commissioners’ withdrawal of the 2003 guidance by means of a Revenue and Customs Brief issued in 2009 and by the Closure Notices which relied on RCB 30/09, because to do so would be so conspicuously unfair as to amount to an abuse of the Commissioners’ powers.
The Commissioners respond that there is no conspicuous unfairness in this case and that there is an overriding public interest in collecting the correct amount of tax. They resist this challenge.’
Held: The request was granted: ‘ Once a legitimate expectation on the part of the taxpayer had been established, the Commissioners were obliged to balance all aspects of unfairness to determine whether, overall, there would be conspicuous unfairness in collecting the tax due. In this case, the Claimant was complaining of unfairness which went far beyond detrimental reliance (although his complaint included that feature). The Commissioners did not consider those other aspects of unfairness. The Closure Notices which were the product of the balancing exercise must for that reason be quashed.’

Judges:

Whipple J

Citations:

[2015] EWHC 3261 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.554572

Keena And Kennedy v Ireland (Dec): ECHR 30 Sep 2014

ECHR Article 10-1
Freedom to impart information
Freedom to receive information
Award of costs against journalists for destroying evidence in order to protect their sources: inadmissible
Facts – The first applicant was a correspondent on and the second applicant the editor of the Irish Times. In 2006 the newspaper published an article containing references to a confidential letter that had been sent to a third party by a tribunal of inquiry set up to investigate alleged corruption. The tribunal ordered the applicants to produce and hand over the documents on which the article was based, but the second applicant replied that they had been destroyed to protect the newspaper’s sources. The tribunal then brought proceedings in the Irish courts for orders compelling the applicants to comply with the tribunal’s order and to appear before the tribunal to answer its questions concerning the source and whereabouts of the documents. Although the Supreme Court ultimately found in the applicants’ favour, it nevertheless ordered them to pay the costs of the proceedings on the grounds that by deliberately destroying the evidence they had deprived the courts of any power to give effect to the tribunal’s order.
In their application to the European Court, the applicants complained that the costs award had interfered with their right to protect their journalistic sources.
Law – Article 10: The Supreme Court’s ruling on costs was not to be characterised as an interference with the applicants’ right to protect the secrecy of their journalistic sources. The issue whether the tribunal had an interest in ascertaining the source of the leak would have involved the balancing of competing public interests and was for the domestic courts to resolve in the first place, guided by the relevant Convention case-law. The domestic courts would have been in a position to do so had the applicants not destroyed the documents. Where competing public interests were in issue, the correct course would have been to allow for a proper judicial determination of the matter in its entirety. Permitting the High Court, and subsequently the Supreme Court, to adjudicate the matter in full would have been fully consonant not only with Article 10, but also with the rule of law, a fundamental principle of the Convention as a whole.
The course of action adopted by the applicants in the instant case was not a legitimate exercise of their right under Article 10 to refuse to disclose their source. The protection of the courts had been available to them in order to vindicate their rights. The Convention did not confer on individuals the right to take upon themselves a role properly reserved to the courts. As the domestic courts had underscored, this was, effectively, what the applicants had done through the deliberate destruction of the very documents that were at the core of the Tribunal’s inquiry.
The Court did not accept that the order for costs was liable to have a chilling effect on freedom of expression. As a general principle, costs were a matter for the discretion of the domestic courts. Furthermore, the order for costs in the circumstances of the applicants’ case could have no impact on public interest journalists who vehemently protected their sources yet recognised and respected the rule of law. The Court could discern nothing in the costs ruling to restrict publication of a public interest story, to compel disclosure of sources or to interfere in any other way with the work of journalism. What the ruling signified was that all persons must respect the role of the courts, and that nobody, journalists included, could usurp the judicial function. The true purport of the Supreme Court’s ruling was to signal that no party was above the law or beyond the lawful jurisdiction of the courts.
Conclusion: inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded).

Citations:

29804/10 – Legal Summary, [2014] ECHR 1284

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 10

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Human Rights, Media

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.538919

Evans, Regina (on The Application of) v The First Secretary of State and Another: Admn 24 Jan 2005

Challenge to a decision by a planning inspector on the claimant’s appeal against the refusal of the Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council to grant him planning permission to use his land as a private gypsy caravan site with associated structures.

Judges:

Newman J

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 149 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.539972

Deza v ECHA: ECFI 6 May 2015

ECJ (Order) Interim measures – REACH – Registration of the chemical bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP) in the list of ‘candidate substances’ – Application for stay of execution – Lack of urgency’

Citations:

T-115/15, [2015] EUECJ T-115/15 – CO, [2017] EUECJ T-115/15

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

European

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.546596

British Museum (Decision Notice): ICO 23 Oct 2008

The complaint submitted two requests to the British Museum, the first focusing on the ‘Parthenon Marbles’ and the second on the ‘Terracotta Army’. The British Museum provided some information in relation to these requests but relied on the exemptions contained at sections 22, 31, 36 and 43 of the Act to withhold the remainder of the information. With the exception of the application of section 22, the complainant asked the Commissioner to consider whether these exemptions had been applied correctly. With regard to the information relating to the first request the Commissioner has concluded that although three letters written by the Museum’s Director are exempt on the basis of section 36, the public interest favours withholding only two of these letters. With to the second request, during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the British Museum suggested that it was now relying on section 12 of the Act to refuse to answer part of this request. The Commissioner has concluded that section 12 can be correctly relied upon and that some of the information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of sections 36 and 43 and that the public interest favours withholding this information. However, the Commissioner has also concluded that in respect of the remainder of the information covered by request two the exemptions contained at sections 31 and 43 of the Act are not engaged. Furthermore, the Commissioner has concluded that British Museum breached section 17(1)(b) by failing to state in its refusal notice the specific sub-sections of the exemptions it was relying on to refuse the complainant’s request as well as breaching all the requirements of section 17(5) by failing to provide a refusal notice citing section 12.
FOI 36: Partly upheld FOI 12: Partly upheld FOI 43: Partly upheld

Citations:

[2008] UKICO FS50169313

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.532731

Commissioner of Police for The Metropolis v Bangs: Admn 3 Mar 2014

Where the police were objecting to the disclosure to a person affected of information relied upon before a magistrate to obtain a search and seizure warrant, the magistrates’ court was not functus officio, and any challenge to the withholding was an issue for the magistrates’ court. The court acknowledged that the public interest might demand that some or all of the material relied on to obtain the warrant not be disclosed

Citations:

[2014] EWHC 546 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Haralambous v St Albans Crown Court and Another Admn 22-Apr-2016
This judicial review raised for express decision whether a person whose premises have been searched and whose property seized under a search warrant must have enough information grounding the warrant to judge its lawfulness and the retention of the . .
Cited – Haralambous, Regina (on The Application of) v Crown Court at St Albans and Another SC 24-Jan-2018
The appellant challenged by review the use of closed material first in the issue of a search warrant, and subsequently to justify the retention of materials removed during the search.
Held: The appeal failed. No express statutory justification . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates, Police

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.521947

Gibson, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice: Admn 4 Sep 2013

Judges:

Gosnell HHJ

Citations:

[2013] WLR(D) 344, [2014] 1 WLR 2658, [2013] EWHC 2481 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 79(2), Drug Trafficking Act 1994 10(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Gibson, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice CA 11-Nov-2015
‘The issue in the case is whether the words ‘the said sum . . as was due at the time the period of detention was imposed’ in section 79(2) of the Magistrates’ Court Act (MCA) 1980 should be construed in the case of confiscation orders made under the . .
At Admn – Gibson, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice SC 24-Jan-2018
The appellant had been sentenced to 5 years imprisonment and a confiscation order pounds 5.4m with six years in default. Small payments were made later by his receivers, but the interest had taken the total sums due over pounds 8m at the time of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.514990

AHK and Others v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 7 Jun 2013

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 1426 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Haralambous v St Albans Crown Court and Another Admn 22-Apr-2016
This judicial review raised for express decision whether a person whose premises have been searched and whose property seized under a search warrant must have enough information grounding the warrant to judge its lawfulness and the retention of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.510720

The Football Association Premier League Ltd v British Sky Broadcasting Ltd and Others: ChD 16 Jul 2013

The League sought an injunction against the majority Internet Service Provider respondents seeking to prevent them carrying links to a free sports TV internet channel.
Held: The orders were granted.

Judges:

Arnold J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 2058 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.512437

Van Der Pijl v Secretary of State for The Home Department and Another: Admn 13 Feb 2014

‘applications for permission to apply for judicial review arising out of closely associated facts and, if permission is granted, for substantive relief. The applications form part of a series of litigation in this jurisdiction and also in the Netherlands arising out of an investigation by the Dutch authorities into suspected fraud and money laundering by, inter alia, the Claimant. ‘
The court emphasised

Judges:

Collins, Green JJ

Citations:

[2014] WLR(D) 71, [2014] EWHC 281 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.521240