‘A Tribunal tasked with resolving a dispute that goes to arbitration should not decide the outcome of the case by adopting a legal approach neither of the parties to the dispute has put forward without allowing the parties to query that approach, the High Court has ruled.’
OUT-LAW.com, 10th November 2014
Source: www.out-law.com
‘A UK court has ruled that pay TV broadcaster BSkyB must make its Sky Sports 1 and 2 channels available on rival BT’s YouView service.’
BBC News, 5th November 2014
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘The First-tier Tribunal (FTT) has upheld the Care Quality Commission’s refusal to supply the names of individuals who provided it with legal advice on the de-registration of a care agency.’
Local Government Lawyer, 5th November 2014
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘Philosophically, everything must have an inherent weight. Otherwise it would have no weight at all. But FOIA is not concerned with philosophy; it is much more concerned with who is in charge of the sheep dip, and indeed the levels of public funding for the sheep being dipped. (No points for spotting that reference, Bruce.) As a result, there are often debates in the FOIA case law about whether a particular qualified exemption contains an inherent weight, i.e. is the fact that the exemption is engaged at all sufficient to place some weight in the public interest balance against disclosure? The answer varies according to the particular exemption.’
Panopticon, 29th October 2014
Source: www.panopticonblog.com
UZ (Pakistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWCA Civ 1319; [2014] WLR (D) 429
‘The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) did not have jurisdiction to determine an application for permission to proceed with a claim for judicial review where the application had been advanced by reference to the Secretary of State’s decisions to reject the application under the Legacy Programme.’
WLR Daily, 15th October 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The High Court had jurisdiction to appoint a provisional liquidator notwithstanding the fact that appeals by the company in respect of disputed VAT assessments were pending in the First-tier Tax Tribunal.’
WLR Daily, 16th October 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The Senior President of Tribunals has amended the practice statement regarding the composition of panels in the First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber).’
Judiciary of England and Wales, 17th October 2014
Source: www.judiciary.gov.uk
‘Following my plaintive cry here, I now have copies of the two Upper Tribunal judgments from Scotland referred to by the DWP. And, while the judgments do do something rather more and rather different to the outcomes suggested in the DWP Circular, sadly, what they actually do is worse.’
NearlyLegal, 6th October 2014
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘In a judgment handed down on Friday, the Competition Appeal Tribunal has quashed the Office of Fair Trading’s decision to accept commitments in the online hotel booking sector. As the first case to consider such commitments, Skyscanner Ltd v CMA [2014] CAT 16 contains some helpful guidance, albeit that Skyscanner’s success actually hinged on a fairly narrow point of regulatory law.’
Competition Bulletin from Blackstone Chambers, 28th September 2014
Source: www.competitionbulletin.com
‘Anthony Korn reports on the recent judgment of First Tier Tribunal Tax Chamber in Moorthy v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (TCO3952).’
No. 5 Chambers, 19th September 2014
Source: www.no5.com
‘A former legal director of Times Newspapers Ltd was guilty of “recklessly” rather than “knowingly” misleading the court in relation to litigation over revelations about the “NightJack” blogger, the High Court has ruled.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 12th September 2014
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘The question of the use of hedonic regression in the calculation of relativity is, I suspect, not breakfast table conversation for some of our readers even if it would appear that in the bars of Chelsea they talk of nothing else. The Upper Tribunal’s decision in Re: 47 Phillimore Gardens (available on the Upper Tribunal website) is all about exactly that topic and I think it is an important one. I will therefore try to unpack with my apologies to those readers for whom most of this is obvious.’
NearlyLegal, 4th September 2014
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘Disclosure of information about children, pursuant to a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FoI), is always a difficult issue and the natural reaction of public authorities is to err on the side of caution.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 1st September 2014
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘In Norseman Gold plc v HMRC[1] the First-tier Tribunal (Judge Colin Bishopp) (“FTT”) dismissed an appeal by Norseman Gold plc (“Norseman”) against assessments made pursuant to section 73 VATA 1994 to recover input tax which had been claimed by it, on the basis that as Norseman had not imposed a charge for its services to its subsidiary companies, there was no taxable supply, for which the company could recover the VAT incurred.’
Commercial Disputes Blog, 27th August 2014
Source: www.rpc.co.uk
‘No less than four FTT bedroom tax appeal decision have come my way lately. Three of them concern successful appeals on human rights Article 14 discrimination or Article 8 family life grounds. One is a clear room size decision with an interesting footnote on tenancy agreements.’
NearlyLegal, 24th August 2014
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘Barrett v Robinson [2014] UKUT 322 (LC) is very, very important decision on costs from the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).’
NearlyLegal, 21st August 2014
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/
‘Information rights tribunals will be able to provide binding rulings on public bodies’ re-use of non-personal information under new plans unveiled by the UK government’
OUT-LAW.com, 20th August 2014
Source: www.out-law.com
‘Judges could determine the outcome of some information rights tribunal cases on their own in future under just-published proposals.’
OUT-LAW.com, 19th August 2014
Source: www.out-law.com
‘The taxpayer has been left to foot a £220m bill after a tribunal ruled that a government contract awarded to a US defence firm to deliver the e-borders programme was unlawfully terminated.’
The Guardian, 19th August 2014
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025