‘Where the revenue gave notice of its withdrawal of approval of a pension scheme under section 591B(1) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988, the date for the purposes of section 591C(1) when the charge to tax arose in respect of that scheme was the date when approval of the scheme was withdrawn and not the date from which approval ceased to continue.’
WLR Daily, 19th December 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘In determining whether an adolescent child had achieved a sufficient degree of integration into a social and family environment in a country in which she was living, so as to be habitually resident there, a relevant factor was her state of mind during that residence.’
WLR Daily, 15th January 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Secretary of State for the Home Department v MG (Case C-400/12); [2014] WLR (D) 4
‘The ten-year period of residence in article 28(3)(a) of Parliament and Council Directive 2004/38/EC of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the member states (OJ 2004 L158, p 77) had to be continuous and calculated by counting back from the date of the decision ordering the expulsion of the person concerned. A period of imprisonment was, in principle, capable both of interrupting the continuity of the period of residence for the purposes of that provision and of affecting the decision regarding the grant of the enhanced protection provided for thereunder, even where the person concerned resided in the host member state for the ten years prior to imprisonment. However, the fact that that person resided in the host member state for the ten years prior to imprisonment could be taken into consideration as part of the overall assessment required in order to determine whether the integrating links previously forged with the host member state had been broken.’
WLR Daily, 16th January 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
In re E (A Child) [2014] EWHC 6 (Fam); [2014] WLR (D) 10
‘In any care or other public law case with a European dimension good practice would now require the court to set out explicitly the basis upon which it had either accepted or rejected jurisdiction and to identify the precise basis upon which it had proceeded. Furthermore, in cases involving foreign nationals there had to be transparency and openness as between the English family courts and the consular and other authorities of the relevant foreign state.’
WLR Daily, 14th January 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Onuekwere v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Case C-378/12); [2014] WLR (D) 7
‘Under article 16(2) of Parliament and Council Directive 2004/38/EC of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the member states, periods of imprisonment in the host member state of a third-country national, who was a family member of a Union citizen who had acquired the right of permanent residence in that member state during those periods, could not be taken into consideration in the context of the acquisition by that national of the right of permanent residence for the purposes of that provision. The continuity of residence was interrupted by periods of imprisonment in the host member state of a third country national who was a family member of a Union citizen who had acquired the right of permanent residence in that member state during those periods for the purposes of article 16(2) and (3).’
WLR Daily, 16th January 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Reyes v Migrationsverket (Case C-423/12); [2014] WLR (D) 6
‘Under article 2(2)(c) of Parliament and Council Directive 2004/38/EC of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the member states (OJ 2004 L158, p 77), a member state could not require a direct descendant who was 21 years old or older to have tried unsuccessfully to obtain employment or to obtain subsistence support from the authorities of his country of origin and/or otherwise to support himself in order to be regarded as dependent and thus come within the definition of a “family member”. The fact that a relative—due to personal circumstances such as age, education and health—was deemed to be well placed to obtain employment and in addition intended to start work in the member state did not affect the interpretation of “dependent”.’
WLR Daily, 16th January 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Finanzamt Düsseldorf-Mitte v Ibero Tours GmbH (Case C-300/12); [2014] WLR (D) 8
‘Under the provisions of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the member states relating to turnover taxes—common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, the principles laid down by the Court of Justice in Elida Gibbs v Customs and Excise Comrs (Case C-317/94) [1997] QB 499 concerning the determination of the taxable amount of the VAT did not apply when a travel agent, acting as an intermediary, granted to the final consumer, on the travel agent’s own initiative and at his own expense, a price reduction on the principal service provided by the tour operator.’
WLR Daily, 16th January 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Schmid v Hertel (Case C-328/12); [2014] WLR (D) 5
‘Under article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings, the courts of the member state within the territory of which insolvency proceedings had been opened had jurisdiction to hear and determine an action to set a transaction aside by virtue of insolvency that was brought against a person whose place of residence was not within the territory of a member state.’
WLR Daily, 16th January 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘CPR r 81.4(3), which gave the court power to order that a company director or officer be imprisoned for a company’s contempt, applied to a director who was outside the jurisdiction.’
WLR Daily, 20th December 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
In the matter of LC (Children)In the matter of LC (Children) (No 2) [2014] UKSC 1
Supreme Court, 15th January 2014
‘Article 27 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, by itself or in conjunction with the provisions of Parliament and Council Directive 2002/14/EC, could not be invoked in a dispute between individuals in order to disapply national provision.’
WLR Daily, 15th January 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘In the case where, in the context of verification of compliance with a judgment delivered by the Court of Justice pursuant to article 260FEU of the FEU Treaty, a difference arose between the European Commission and the member state concerned as to whether national legislation or a national practice which the Court of Justice had not examined beforehand was appropriate for ensuring compliance with that judgment, the commission could not, by adopting a decision, resolve such a difference itself and draw from this the necessary inferences for the calculation of the penalty payment.’
WLR Daily, 15th January 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina v Robinson-Pierre [2013] EWCA Crim 2396; [2013] WLR (D) 517
‘An offence of allowing a dog to be dangerously out of control in a public place, contrary to section 3(1) of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, was a strict liability offence but nevertheless required proof by the prosecution of an act or omission on the part of the defendant (with or without fault) that to some (more than minimal) degree caused or permitted that prohibited state of affairs to come about.’
WLR Daily, 20th December 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Supreme Court
LC (Children), Re [2014] UKSC 1 (15 January 2014)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Eugen Seitz AG v KHS Corpoplast GmbH & Anor [2014] EWHC 14 (Ch) (15 January 2014)
High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
Bijlani v Unum Ltd [2014] EWHC 27 (QB) (15 January 2014)
High Court (Technology and Construction Court)
Pickard Finlason Partnership Ltd v Lock & Anor [2014] EWHC 25 (TCC) (15 January 2014)
Source: www.bailii.org
Nugent v Nugent: [2013] EWHC 4095 (Ch); [2013] WLR (D) 516
‘The High Court’s inherent jurisdiction pertaining to the vacation of cautions registered under the Land Registration Act 1925 applied equally to applications for the cancellation of unilateral notices against title registered under the successor provisions of the Land Registration Act 2002.’
WLR Daily, 20th December 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
High Court (Administrative Court)
Shaw & Anor v Logue [2014] EWHC 5 (Admin) (13 January 2014)
High Court (Family Division)
E (A Child), Re [2014] EWHC 6 (Fam) (14 January 2014)
S v S [2014] EWHC 7 (Fam) (14 January 2014)
Source: www.bailii.org
DLA Piper UK LLP v BDO LLP [2013] EWHC 3970 (Admin); [2013] WLR (D) 515
‘Where a person had attended court and successfully resisted being made subject to a witness summons under section 2 of the Criminal Procedure (Attendance of Witnesses) Act 1965 the only basis for the Crown Court ordering costs against the solicitor of the party seeking the summons would be that for which statute provided, namely, a wasted costs order under section 19A of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985.’
WLR Daily, 13th January 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
High Court (Chancery Division)
Key Homes Bradford Ltd & Ors v Patel [2014] EWHC B1 (Ch) (10 January 2014)
Source: www.bailii.org
Prime Sight Ltd v Lavarello [2013] UKPC 22; [2013] WLR (D) 514
‘When a deed contained a valid contract of sale the parties were entitled on ordinary contractual principles to rely on the terms of the deed by which the purchase price was treated between the parties as having been paid, even though no payment had in fact been made. In those circumstances the seller’s trustee in bankruptcy was estopped by the terms of the deed from asserting that the purchase price had not been paid.’
WLR Daily, 9th July 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025