Click the case name for better results:

Banner Homes Group Plc v Luff Developments and Another: CA 10 Feb 2000

Competing building companies agreed not to bid against each other for the purchase of land. One proceeded and the other asserted that the land was then held on trust for the two parties as a joint venture. Held: Although there was no formal agreement, the first company had allowed its position to be worsened relying … Continue reading Banner Homes Group Plc v Luff Developments and Another: CA 10 Feb 2000

Buckland v Bournemouth University Higher Education Corporation: CA 24 Feb 2010

The claimant had been dismissed from his post as chair of archeology after criticism of his marking practices. Though a report vindicated him, the respondent continued with disciplinary procedures. He claimed unfair dismissal. The EAT had allowed the university’s appeal saying that the found repudiatory breach had been remedied before the resignation. The University now … Continue reading Buckland v Bournemouth University Higher Education Corporation: CA 24 Feb 2010

Douglas and others v Hello! Ltd and others; similar: HL 2 May 2007

In Douglas, the claimants said that the defendants had interfered with their contract to provide exclusive photographs of their wedding to a competing magazine, by arranging for a third party to infiltrate and take and sell unauthorised photographs. In OBG, the defendants acted as receivers under an invalid charge, and were accused of unlawful interference … Continue reading Douglas and others v Hello! Ltd and others; similar: HL 2 May 2007

London Borough of Lewisham v Malcolm and Disability Rights Commission: CA 25 Jul 2007

The court was asked, whether asked to grant possession against a disabled tenant where the grounds for possession were mandatory. The defendant was a secure tenant with a history of psychiatric disability. He had set out to buy his flat, but the council sought possession when it discovered that he had sublet. Held: Section 23(3)(c) … Continue reading London Borough of Lewisham v Malcolm and Disability Rights Commission: CA 25 Jul 2007

O’Reilly v Mackman: HL 1982

Remission of Sentence is a Privilege not a Right The plaintiffs had begun their action, to challenge their loss of remission as prisoners, by means of a writ, rather than by an action for judicial review, and so had sidestepped the requirement for the action to be brought within strict time limits. Held: The forfeiture … Continue reading O’Reilly v Mackman: HL 1982

Brighton and Hove City Council v Audus: ChD 26 Feb 2009

The claimant was the proprietor of a fourth legal charge on a title. It sought a declaration that a second charge in favour of the defendant was void as a clog on the proprietor’s equity of redemption. An advance secured by a first charge, also in favour of the defendant had been used to purchase … Continue reading Brighton and Hove City Council v Audus: ChD 26 Feb 2009

Downs and Another v Chappell and Another: CA 3 Apr 1996

The plaintiffs had suceeded in variously establishing claims in deceit and negligence, but now appealed against the finding that no damages had flowed from the wrongs. They had been sold a business on the basis of incorrect figures. Held: Where a plaintiff has been induced to enter into a transaction by a misrepresentation, whether fraudulent … Continue reading Downs and Another v Chappell and Another: CA 3 Apr 1996

Harding v Revenue and Customs: CA 23 Oct 2008

Lapsed Currency conversion option lost status The taxpayer appealed his assessment to Capital Gains Tax on his redemption of loan notes arising following the sale of his computer company. He said that they were qualifying corporate bonds. The question was whether a security in which a currency conversion option has lapsed, becomes (as the taxpayer … Continue reading Harding v Revenue and Customs: CA 23 Oct 2008

Pegasus Management Holdings Sca and Another v Ernst and Young (A Firm) and Another: ChD 11 Nov 2008

The claimants alleged professional negligence in advice given by the defendant on a share purchase, saying that it should have been structured to reduce Capital Gains Tax. The defendants denied negligence and said the claim was statute barred. Held: The defence in fact was that the claimant had both brought the claim too early because … Continue reading Pegasus Management Holdings Sca and Another v Ernst and Young (A Firm) and Another: ChD 11 Nov 2008

In re Racal Communications Ltd; In Re a Company: HL 3 Jul 1980

Court of Appeal’s powers limited to those Given The jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal is wholly statutory; it is appellate only. The court has no original jurisdiction. It has no jurisdiction itself to entertain any original application for judicial review; it has appellate jurisdiction over judgments and orders of the High Court made by … Continue reading In re Racal Communications Ltd; In Re a Company: HL 3 Jul 1980

Three Rivers District Council and others v Governor and Company of the Bank of England (No 6): HL 11 Nov 2004

The Bank anticipated criticism in an ad hoc enquiry which was called to investigate its handling of a matter involving the claimant. The claimant sought disclosure of the documents created when the solicitors advised employees of the Bank in preparing to present the Bank’s case, and the Bank now appealed an order granting such access, … Continue reading Three Rivers District Council and others v Governor and Company of the Bank of England (No 6): HL 11 Nov 2004

Douglas and others v Hello! Ltd and others (No 3): CA 18 May 2005

The principal claimants sold the rights to take photographs of their wedding to a co-claimant magazine (OK). Persons acting on behalf of the defendants took unauthorised photographs which the defendants published. The claimants had retained joint copyright over the photographs and reserved a right to control publication of any particular photographs. In return they made … Continue reading Douglas and others v Hello! Ltd and others (No 3): CA 18 May 2005

Autologic Holdings Plc and others v Commissioners of Inland Revenue: HL 28 Jul 2005

Taxpayer companies challenged the way that the revenue restricted claims for group Corporation Tax relief for subsidiary companies in Europe. The issue was awaiting a decision of the European Court. The Revenue said that the claims now being made by other companies should proceed through the Commissioners who could implement European law directly. The taxpayers … Continue reading Autologic Holdings Plc and others v Commissioners of Inland Revenue: HL 28 Jul 2005

Miller v Miller; McFarlane v McFarlane: HL 24 May 2006

Fairness on Division of Family Capital The House faced the question of how to achieve fairness in the division of property following a divorce. In the one case there were substantial assets but a short marriage, and in the other a high income, but low capital. Held: The 1973 Act gives only limited guidance on … Continue reading Miller v Miller; McFarlane v McFarlane: HL 24 May 2006

Williams and Glyn’s Bank Ltd v Boland: HL 19 Jun 1980

Wife in Occupation had Overriding Interest The wife had made a substantial financial contribution to the purchase price of the house which was registered only in her husband’s name, and charged to the bank. The bank sought possession. The wife resisted saying that she had an overriding interest. Held: Her equitable interest was not only … Continue reading Williams and Glyn’s Bank Ltd v Boland: HL 19 Jun 1980

NML Capital Ltd v Argentina: SC 6 Jul 2011

The respondent had issued bonds but in 2001 had declared a moratorium on paying them. The appellant hedge fund later bought the bonds, heavily discounted. Judgment was obtained in New York, which the appellants now sought to enforce against assets in the UK. They argued that the terms of issue waived state immunity. Held: The … Continue reading NML Capital Ltd v Argentina: SC 6 Jul 2011

Collector of Stamp Revenue v Arrowtown Assets Ltd: 4 Dec 2003

(Hong Kong Final Court of Appeal) The court was asked as to the accounting treatment of interests incurred in the development for the purpose of generating the profits, and therefore whether the relevant Ordinance prohibited the capitalisation of interest for the purpose of computing the taxpayer’s assessable profits and allowable deductions. Held: Where schemes involve … Continue reading Collector of Stamp Revenue v Arrowtown Assets Ltd: 4 Dec 2003

Scottish Widows Plc v Revenue and Customs: SC 6 Jul 2011

The taxpayer insurance company had transferred sums from accounts designated as Capital Reserves. The Revenue said that these were properly part of the profit and loss accounts for the respective tax years, and chargeable receipts. Held: The Revenue’s cross appeal succeeded. As a life assurance company, the amounts to be taken into account in computing … Continue reading Scottish Widows Plc v Revenue and Customs: SC 6 Jul 2011

Trennery v West (Inspector of Taxes): HL 27 Jan 2005

The House considered the application of the section to ‘flip-flop trusts’. The section allocated liability to charge on gains within a settlement under certain circumstances onto the settlor, and at his rate of tax. Assets were allocated to two trusts, which in alternating years realised gains and allowed a benefit to be taken. Held: The … Continue reading Trennery v West (Inspector of Taxes): HL 27 Jan 2005

Revenue and Customs v DCC Holdings (UK) Ltd: SC 15 Dec 2010

The taxpayer had entered into a ‘repo’ loan to its bank, agreeing to purchase a block of gilt edged securities, and to resell them at a later date at a fixed figure. The profit and figures included an allowance for the interest payments to be made. The company now appealed against being refused permission to … Continue reading Revenue and Customs v DCC Holdings (UK) Ltd: SC 15 Dec 2010

Collector of Stamp Revenue v Arrowtown Assets Ltd; 4 Dec 2003

References: [2003] HKCFA 52, [2004] 1 HKLRD 77, (2003) 6 HKCFAR 517, ACV 4/2003 Links: Hklii Coram: Ribeiro PJ, Lord Millett NPJ Ratio: (Hong Kong Final Court of Appeal) The court was asked as to the accounting treatment of interests incurred in the development for the purpose of generating the profits, and therefore whether the … Continue reading Collector of Stamp Revenue v Arrowtown Assets Ltd; 4 Dec 2003

National Justice Compania Naviera S A v Prudential Assurance Company Ltd (‘The Ikarian Reefer’): 1993

References: [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 68 Coram: Cresswell J Ratio:Cresswell J spoke of the nature of the duty owed by expert witnesses: ‘The duties and responsibilities of expert witnesses in civil cases include the following: 1. Expert evidence presented to the Court should be, and should be seen to be, the independent product of the … Continue reading National Justice Compania Naviera S A v Prudential Assurance Company Ltd (‘The Ikarian Reefer’): 1993

National Justice Compania Naviera S A v Prudential Assurance Company Ltd (The Ikarian Reefer”): 1993″

References: [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 68 Coram: Cresswell J Cresswell J spoke of the nature of the duty owed by expert witnesses: ‘The duties and responsibilities of expert witnesses in civil cases include the following: 1. Expert evidence presented to the Court should be, and should be seen to be, the independent product of the … Continue reading National Justice Compania Naviera S A v Prudential Assurance Company Ltd (The Ikarian Reefer”): 1993″