‘A persistent offender from Libya cannot be deported because he would face severe punishment for drinking in his homeland, immigration court rules.’
Daily Telegraph, 27th April 2015
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘The word “hopeless” appears five times in the determination of R (on the application of Rashid) v Secretary of State for the Home Department IJR [2015] UKUT 190 (IAC). While the judge remains fairly cool she was clearly irritated with Counsel. Much of the case is devoted to salvaging some sense from the proliferating grounds or traversing territory that is already well known, but there is something new to take away. New to me, at any rate.’
Free Movement, 23rd April 2015
Source: www.freemovement.org.uk
‘In a useful case the Upper Tribunal addresses one of the “mind the gap” differences between the Immigration Rules and the requirements of human rights law. There is a growing body of case law that recognises that the two bodies of law are not, contrary to the Home Office position, coterminous. The latest is R (on the application of Chen) v Secretary of State for the Home Department) (Appendix FM – Chikwamba – temporary separation – proportionality) IJR [2015] UKUT 189 (IAC) on, you guessed it, the House of Lords case of Chikwamba and the proportionality of having to travel abroad in order to apply from abroad.’
Free Movement, 22nd April 2015
Source: www.freemovement.org.uk
‘Although an individual’s right to privacy is usually thought of in the context of state intrusion in one form or another, in reality the real threat of intrusion in a society such as ours comes from unsolicited marketing calls.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 17th April 2015
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘A UK court has increased the level of fine imposed on a business which made unsolicited marketing calls to people signed up to the Telephone Preference Service (TPS) by 50%.’
OUT-LAW.com, 17th April 2015
Source: www.out-law.com
‘Department of Health v. Information Commissioner et al [2015] UKUT 159, 30 March 2015, Charles J read judgment Simon Lewis requested that the Department of Health supply him with copies of the ministerial diary of Andrew Lansley from May 2010 until April 2011, via a Freedom of Information request. Mr Lewis’s interest in all this is not revealed in the judgment, but I dare say included seeing whether the Minister was being lobbied by private companies eager to muscle in on the NHS in this critical period. But such is the nature of FOIA litigation that it does not really look at the motive of the requester – and this case does not tell us what the diary showed. Indeed by the time of this appeal, Lewis was untraceable, and the burden of the argument in favour of disclosure was taken up by the Information Commissioner.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 10th April 2015
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘In Gemsupa Limited and Consolidated Property Wilmslow Limited v HMRC [2015] UKFTT 0097 (TC), the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (“FTT”) found that an avoidance scheme designed to avoid corporation tax on chargeable gains on the disposal of properties through the use of share sales and options to create and then disband a group was effective.’
RPC Tax Take, 25th March 2015
Source: www.rpc.co.uk
PF (Nigeria) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 251; [2015] WLR (D) 149
‘Where a decision of the First-tier or Upper Tribunal was not unanimous and the votes of the tribunal members were equally divided, the power conferred on the presiding member of the tribunal to provide the casting vote was not to be exercised irrespective of the nature and extent of the disagreement between the tribunal members. Disagreement as to the applicable law might in general justify the exercise of the casting vote, but not disagreement on fundamental primary factual issues.’
WLR Daily, 25th March 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
ITV plc and others v Pensions Regulator and another [2015] EWCA Civ 228; [2015] WLR (D) 139
‘The Upper Tribunal had a discretion to allow the Pensions Regulator to raise new allegations on a reference which were not contained in a warning notice issued pursuant to section 96 of the Pensions Act 2004. The discretion should be exercised based on a consideration of all the relevant factors in the case, weighing up all the facts and circumstances, and not just the narrow question whether the Pensions Regulator had good reason for seeking to enlarge its case.’
WLR Daily, 24th March 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘A paramedic who left patients in an ambulance while he did some shopping and had his hair cut has been found guilty of misconduct.’
BBC News, 25th March 2015
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘A Canadian woman who was told she could not stay in Britain after ending her relationship with a violent partner has won indefinite leave to remain.’
BBC News, 23rd March 2015
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘On the face of it, BT was the main winner in this week’s ruling from the Competition Appeal Tribunal: see British Telecommunications plc v Office of Communications [2015] CAT 6. However, the decision, which makes interesting comments on the rights of parties to adduce new grounds and evidence on an appeal, raises important notes of caution to all parties which may wish to appeal or intervene in future cases.’
Competition Bulletin from Blackstone Chambers, 20th March 2015
Source: www.competitionbulletin.com
‘In the recent case of Herefordshire Property Company Ltd v HMRC1, the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (“FTT”) allowed the taxpayer’s appeal against the imposition by HMRC of a penalty, which was based on an allegation of negligent implementation of a tax planning scheme by the taxpayer.’
RPC Tax Take, 18th March 2015
Source: www.rpc.co.uk
‘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
© Inner Temple Library 2025