‘In Terrace Hill (Berkeley) Ltd v HMRC[1], the First-tier Tribunal (“the FTT”) rejected HMRC’s arguments and concluded that a property developer’s activity in relation to the development of an office property was an investment rather than a trading activity and allowed its appeal.’
RPC Tax Take, 11th March 2015
Source: www.rpc.co.uk
‘Irvine Maccabe discusses practical issues and strategies to consider in relation to recusal, judicial misconduct and transcripts.’
No. 5 Chambers, 12th January 2015
Source: www.no5.com
‘Normally, where an application for judicial review is made the first stage is for a judge to consider the grounds for judicial review and the acknowledgement of service and summary grounds of defence, then decide without holding a hearing whether permission should be granted. Lawyers commonly refer to this decision as being “on the papers” because there is no oral hearing.’
Free Movement, 19th March 2015
Source: www.freemovement.org.uk
‘In this case the legislative framework at play was the interplay between the education and employment protections in the Equality Act 2010 (‘the Act’). S56(5) was the particular provision under the microscope, which provides that training or guidance covered by s91(within the education provisions of the Act) falls outside the employment services protection afforded by s55; it provides that s56 ‘does not apply in relation to training or guidance for students of an institution to which s91 applies in so far as it is training or guidance to which the governing body of the institution has power to afford access’.’
No. 5 Chambers, 12th January 2015
Source: www.no5.com
‘The Court of Appeal has rejected Ryanair’s contention that the Competition Appeal Tribunal was incorrect to uphold the Competition Commission’s order that Ryanair should reduce its stake in Aer Lingus from 28.5 to 5 per cent.’
Full story (PDF)
Zenith Chambers, 16th February 2015
Source: www.zenithchambers.co.uk
‘A party that had paid reduced penalties through the UK’s early resolution procedure could not appeal the penalties after the competition authority’s case had collapsed and following successful appeals by other parties to the investigation.’
Full story (PDF)
Zenith Chambers, 2nd February 2015
Source: www.zenithchambers.co.uk
‘Eurotunnel began its cross-Channel ferry service in August 2012 using assets acquired from Sea France after its liquidation in 2011. The transaction was blocked by the Competition Commission in 2013 because it gave Eurotunnel too strong a presence in the cross-channel transportation market. In its 9 January 2015 judgment the Competition Appeal Tribunal dismissed Eurotunnel’s appeal against the decision by the CMA to prohibit the deal for a second time. The judgment is significant when viewed against a background of trades in distressed assets in Europe and internationally. It merits a careful reading for parties seeking to realise value from company liquidations.’
Full story (PDF)
Zenith Chambers, 13th January 2015
Source: www.zenithchambers.co.uk
‘In Blakesley v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2015] EWCA Civ 141 the Court of Appeal considered whether the UK Government is in breach of its international obligations towards refugees because of the lack of any provision to make back-payments of welfare benefits to those asylum seekers who, upon inquiry, are found to be refugees.’
Free Movement, 12th March 2015
Source: www.freemovement.org.uk
‘In a very welcome determination that comes a mere two years after the abolition of full rights of appeal for visitors but in the middle of the scything of full rights of appeal for everyone else, President McCloskey has turned his attention to the question of the relevance of compliance with the Immigration Rules to a human rights appeal. The answer is that where a person meets the terms of the Immigration Rules, their appeal will normally fall to be allowed on human rights grounds, assuming that human rights are engaged in some way in the first place.’
Free Movement, 10th March 2015
Source: www.freemovement.org.uk
‘The number of judicial review applications lodged at the High Court fell from 15,600 to just 4,062 last year – caused mainly, but not entirely by the transfer of immigration and asylum cases to the Upper Tribunal.’
Litigation Futures, 10th March 2015
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
Blakesley v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2015] EWCA Civ 141; [2015] WLR (D) 96
‘The Government was not obliged to make lump sum payments to successful applicants for asylum representing the difference between the support they received while their application was being processed and mainstream benefits.’
WLR Daily, 26th February 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘In a recent determination, the President of the Upper Tribunal suggested that documents and submissions could be sent electronically to the tribunal in order to facilitate efficient justice:
“…parties and their representatives are strongly encouraged to communicate electronically with the Tribunal and, further, to seek confirmation that important communications and/or attachments have been received.”‘
Free Movement, 26th February 2015
Source: www.freemovement.org.uk
‘As my colleague Robin Hopkins has warned, the decision of the Upper Tribunal in Fish Legal looks like a pretty big beast: sixty pages on whether water companies are public authorities for the purposes of the Environmental Information Regulations, applying the CJEU’s lengthy ruling on the points of principle (for which, see this post by Chris Knight).’
Panopticon, 24th February 2015
Source: www.panopticonblog.com
‘In recent years, there has been a seemingly unending string of cases relating to whether certain activities constitute trading. Ewan Leslie James McMorris v HMRC[1]is the latest case to consider the circumstances in which a taxpayer may deduct losses incurred from his other income under section 64, Income Tax Act 2007 (ITA).’
RPC Tax Take, 13th February 2015
Source: www.rpc.co.uk
‘The regime under which UK intelligence agencies, including MI5 and MI6, have been monitoring conversations between lawyers and their clients for the past five years is unlawful, the British government has admitted.’
The Guardian, 18th February 2015
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Clavis Liberty Fund LPI v Revenue and Customs Commissioners and others [2015] WLR (D) 69
‘The First-tier Tribunal Tax Chamber had no jurisdiction to issue witness summonses addressed to prospective witnesses who had no presence in the jurisdiction.’
WLR Daily, 12th February 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Despite being hailed as an ‘historic victory in the age-old battle for the right to privacy and free expression’, closer examination of a recent ruling by the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (‘IPT’) reveals it to have been a hollow victory.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 16th February 2015
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘A new campaign by human rights watchdog Privacy International could allow millions of citizens in Britain and elsewhere to have data that was collected on them deleted.’
The Independent, 16th February 2015
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘Says the White Rabbit in Alice in Wonderland, “Oh my furry whiskers, I’m late, I’m late, I’m late!” Although the application of FOIA may sometimes feel like Wonderland, the feeling it induces is normally more akin to turning up unexpectedly at the Mad Hatter’s Tea Party (although attributing FTT judicial figures to the characters of the Mad Hatter and the Dormouse is beyond me). But one thing that has, since Birkett v DEFRA [2011] EWCA Civ 1606, not generally proved very controversial is the question of late reliance on exemptions; the White Rabbit need have little fear. Birkett made clear that late (usually after the DN and in the course of litigation before the FTT) reliance on substantive exemptions is permissible, subject to case management powers, under the EIR. The unappealed equivalent decision under FOIA, Information Commissioner v Home Office [2011] UKUT 17 (AAC), has generally been assumed to be correct.’
Panopticon, 15th February 2015
Source: www.panopticonblog.com
‘If permission to appeal against a decision of a First-tier Tribunal in a welfare benefits case is refused by the Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber), then the claimant will not be able to appeal that decision. This is because it is an excluded decision under s. 13(8)(c) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, and the Upper Tribunal has no jurisdiction to review its refusal of permission by virtue of s.10(1) and s.13(8)(d)(i) of the 2007 Act. This means the only remedy available is by way of judicial review (Samuda v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2014] EWCA Civ 1). The deadline for applying for judicial review against a refusal of permission by an Upper Tribunal is 16 days. CPR rule 54.7A(3).’
Free Movement, 16th February 2015
Source: www.freemovement.org.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024