Results: 101

• R (Cart) v Upper Tribunal (Public Law Project intervening) (R (C) v Special Immigration Appeals Commission (Public Law Project intervening), R (U) v Special Immigration Appeals Commission (Public Law Project intervening))

  01 Dec 2009 [2009] EWHC 3052 (Admin); [2011] QB 120; [2010] 2 WLR 1012; [2010] PTSR 824; [2010] 1 All ER 908; [2010] STC 493, DC

  23 Jul 2010 [2010] EWCA Civ 859; [2011] QB 120; [2011] 2 WLR 36; [2011] PTSR 42; [2010] 4 All ER 714; [2010] STC 2556; [2010] WLR (D) 198, CA (Laws LJ, Owen J)

  22 Jun 2011 [2011] UKSC 28; [2012] 1 AC 663; [2011] 3 WLR 107; [2011] PTSR 1053; [2011] 4 All ER 127; [2011] STC 1659; [2012] 1 FLR 997; [2011] WLR (D) 203; Case details, SC(E)

  Subsequent considerations : 6 positive; 5 neutral; most recently considered: 2021. Subsequent citations: 158.
  JUDICIAL REVIEW — Court's jurisdiction — Special Immigration Appeals Commission

  JUDICIAL REVIEW — Court's jurisdiction — Upper Tribunal
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  JUDICIAL REVIEW — Court's jurisdiction — Special Immigration Appeals Commission — Commission “superior court of record” — Commission revoking and refusing bail on basis of closed evidence without disclosing gist to claimants — Decisions unappealable — Whether commission alter ego of High Court — Whether decisions susceptible to judicial review — Whether violating claimants' Convention rights — Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997, s 1(3) (as inserted by Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, s 35)

  JUDICIAL REVIEW — Court's jurisdiction — Upper Tribunal — Tribunal “superior court of record” — Tribunal refusing permission to appeal to itself — Decision unappealable — Whether tribunal alter ego of High Court — Whether decision susceptible to judicial review — Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, s 3(5)

  16 Case(s) considered

  1 Words & Phrases considered

  2 Statutes considered
• Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation v Revenue and Customs Comrs

  12 Dec 2008 [2008] EWHC 2893 (Ch); [2009] STC 254, Ch D (Henderson J)

  23 Feb 2010 [2010] EWCA Civ 103; [2010] STC 1251; [2010] WLR (D) 58, CA

  23 May 2012 [2012] UKSC 19; [2012] 2 AC 337; [2012] 2 WLR 1149; [2012] Bus LR 1033; [2012] 3 All ER 909; [2012] STC 1362; [2012] WLR (D) 161; Case details, SC(E)

  12 Dec 2013 (Case C-362/12); EU:C:2013:834; [2014] AC 1161; [2014] 3 WLR 743; [2014] All ER (EC) 375; [2014] STC 638; [2014] 2 CMLR 33; [2013] WLR (D) 488, ECJ

  23 Jul 2021 [2021] UKSC 31; [2021] 1 WLR 4354; [2022] 1 All ER 751; [2021] STC 1597; [2021] WLR(D) 446, SC(E) (Lord Reed PSC, Lord Hodge DPSC, Lord Briggs, Lord Sales, Lord Hamblen JJSC)

  Subsequent considerations : 4 positive; 2 neutral; 1 negative; most recently considered: 2020. Subsequent citations: 102.
  REVENUE — Corporation tax — Advance corporation tax

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY — Breach of Community law — Domestic remedy

  RESTITUTION — Quasi-contract — Moneys had and received

  EUROPEAN UNION — Breach of European Union law — Domestic remedy

  REVENUE — Taxpayers paying advance corporation tax in breach of European Union law — Proper approach to calculating amount payable to taxpayers in restitution

  EUROPEAN UNION — Judicial protection — Principle of effectiveness
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  REVENUE — Corporation tax — Advance corporation tax — United Kingdom resident companies entitled to deduct advance corporation tax paid on nationally-sourced dividends when paying dividends to UK shareholders — No entitlement to deduct foreign tax paid on foreign-sourced dividends — Court of Justice of European Communities holding rule withholding tax credit from non-resident shareholders precluded by EC law — Whether further reference to Court of Justice required — Differential treatment of foreign-sourced and nationally-sourced dividends under United Kingdom law — Whether differential treatment precluded by European Community law — EC Treaty, arts 43EC, 56EC, 57EC

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY — Breach of Community law — Domestic remedy — Claims for recovery of taxes unduly levied — Requirement that domestic law of member state provide effective remedy for recovery of taxes levied contrary to Community law — English law providing resitutionary remedy of recovery of unlawfully exacted taxes — Claimant relying on alternative remedy of recovery of sums paid under mistake of law — Whether Community law requirement extending to alternative remedy so as to preclude statutory curtailment of limitation period if contrary to Community law principles — Finance Act 2004, s 320 — Finance Act 2007, s 107

  RESTITUTION — Quasi-contract — Moneys had and received — Statute levying tax contrary to EU law — Payments of moneys to revenue in accordance with taxing statute — Payments made without prior formal demand by revenue — Taxpayers’ right to recover unlawfully exacted taxes — Whether applicable in absence of demand by revenue — Whether within statutory provision extending limitation period for actions for relief from consequences of mistake — Whether applicable where recovery possible under statutory right for repayment of tax paid by error or mistake — Taxes Management Act 1970 (as amended by Finance Act 1994, s 196, Sch 19, para 8(2)), s 33(1)(2A) — Limitation Act 1980, s 32(1)(c)

  EUROPEAN UNION — Breach of European Union law — Domestic remedy — Claims for recovery of taxes unduly levied — Requirement that domestic law of member state provide effective remedy for recovery of taxes levied contrary to European Union law — English common law restitutionary remedy enabling recovery of unlawfully exacted taxes — Claimants relying on alternative remedy of recovery of sums paid under mistake of law — National statutory provisions curtailing limitation period for applicable remedies without notice and retroactively — Whether European Union principles of effectiveness, legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations precluding statutory curtailment of limitation period for alternative remedy — Limitation Act 1980, s 32(1)(c) — Finance Act 2004, s 320

  REVENUE — Corporation tax — Advance corporation tax — Different tax treatment of nationally-sourced and foreign-sourced dividends received by UK-resident companies contrary to EU law — Taxpayers entitled to repayment of tax unlawfully levied and tax credits — Revenue making concession that taxpayers entitled to compound interest on restitutionary award — Whether revenue barred from withdrawing concession — Whether and on what basis taxpayers entitled to interest for tax paid prematurely — Whether taxpayers entitled to carry forward unused double taxation relief — Whether revenue enriched by receipt of unlawful tax — Whether amount of repayment reduced if UK companies having foreign parent — Whether EU standstill provision applying after UK altered foreign tax rules — When and to what extent unlawfully charged tax regarded as surrendered — Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988, ss 231, 240 — FEU Treaty, arts 63, 64

  REVENUE — Taxpayers paying advance corporation tax in breach of European Union law — Proper approach to calculating amount payable to taxpayers in restitution

  REVENUE — Corporation tax — Advance corporation tax — Taxpayers’ claims for restitution of tax levied in breach of EU law — Revenue conceding taxpayers entitled to restitution of unlawfully levied tax with compound interest — Whether revenue barred from withdrawing concession to prejudice of taxpayers — Whether and on what basis taxpayers entitled to interest for tax paid prematurely — Whether taxpayers entitled to restitution in respect of unused double taxation relief credits — Whether revenue enriched by receipt of unlawful tax when paying out shareholder credits — Whether EU standstill provision applying after UK altering foreign tax rules — Appropriate method for calculating award where parent company surrendering surplus tax to subsidiary — Senior Courts Act 1981 (c 54), s 35A — Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (c 1), ss 231, 240 — Access to Justice Act 1999 (c 22), s 54(4) — Finance Act 2019 (c 1), s 85 — FEU Treaty, arts 63, 64

  EUROPEAN UNION — Judicial protection — Principle of effectiveness — Principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations — Restitution of sums paid but not due — Remedies — National legislation — Curtailment of the limitation period for the applicable remedies without notice and retroactively

  19 Case(s) considered

  1 EU Enactment considered

  3 Statutes considered

• Edwards v Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust

  31 Jul 2009 [2009] EWHC 2011 (QB); [2009] IRLR 822, QBD (Nicol J)

  26 May 2010 [2010] EWCA Civ 571; [2011] QB 339; [2010] 3 WLR 1285; [2010] ICR 1181; [2010] WLR (D) 135, CA

  14 Dec 2011 [2011] UKSC 58; [2012] 2 AC 22; [2012] 2 WLR 55; [2012] ICR 201; [2012] 2 All ER 278; Case details, SC(E)

  Subsequent citations: 32.
  EMPLOYMENT — Contract of employment — Breach of contract
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  EMPLOYMENT — Contract of employment — Breach of contract — Summary dismissal on ground of gross misconduct — Employer failing to comply with contractual disciplinary procedure — Employee unable to obtain equivalent post — Whether damages recoverable for breach of contract

  7 Case(s) considered

• R v Gnango

  26 Jul 2010 [2010] EWCA Crim 1691; [2011] 1 WLR 1414; [2011] 1 All ER 153; [2010] 2 Cr App R 345; [2010] WLR (D) 201, CA

  14 Dec 2011 [2011] UKSC 59; [2012] 1 AC 827; [2012] 2 WLR 17; [2012] 2 All ER 129; [2012] 1 Cr App R 219; [2011] WLR (D) 365; Case details, SC(E)

  Subsequent citations: 4.
  CRIME — Homicide — Murder
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  CRIME — Homicide — Murder — Joint enterprise — Defendant and another man shooting at each other in car park — Passer-by killed by bullet from other man’s gun — Whether defendant and other man engaged in joint enterprise to commit affray — Whether defendant capable of being guilty of murder either as accessory or as participant in joint enterprise — Whether jury’s verdict amounting to guilt by aiding and abetting in murder despite judge’s failure to direct jury on aiding and abetting

  5 Case(s) considered
• R (WL (Congo)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (R (WL (Congo)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (No 2), R (Lumba) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (JUSTICE intervening), R (Lumba) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (JUSTICE intervening) (No 2), R (Mighty) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (JUSTICE intervening))

  04 Jul 2008 [2008] EWHC 2090 (Admin), QBD (Collins J)

  19 Feb 2010 [2010] EWCA Civ 111; [2010] 1 WLR 2168; [2010] 4 All ER 489; [2010] UKHRR 366, CA (Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury MR, Carnwath, Stanley Burnton LJJ)

  23 Mar 2011 [2011] UKSC 12; [2012] 1 AC 245; [2011] 2 WLR 671; [2011] 4 All ER 1; [2011] WLR (D) 100; Case details, SC(E) (Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers PSC, Lord Hope of Craighead DPSC, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, Lord Collins of Mapesbury, Lord Kerr of Tonaghmore, Lord Dyson JJSC)

  Subsequent considerations : 19 positive; 6 neutral; 5 negative; most recently considered: 2022. Subsequent citations: 520.
  DAMAGES — Measure of damages — False imprisonment

  IMMIGRATION — Deportation order — Detention pending deportation

  TORT — Cause of action — False imprisonment
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  DAMAGES — Measure of damages — False imprisonment — Public law error and abuse of power in detention of claimants prior to deportation — Inevitable that claimants would have been detained even if detention powers had been lawfully exercised — Claimants suffering no damage as result of unlawful detention — Whether exemplary or vindicatory damages justified — Whether claimants entitled to more than nominal damages for false imprisonment

  IMMIGRATION — Deportation order — Detention pending deportation — Claimant foreign nationals sentenced to imprisonment — Claimants detained under Home Secretary's directions pending deportation — Home Secretary's published policy to detain convicted foreign nationals only when justified — Claimants' claim of unlawful detention on grounds Home Secretary operating unpublished blanket policy of detention of all convicted foreign nationals — Whether policy containing presumption in favour of detention unlawful — Whether operation of unpublished policy unlawful — Whether claimants' detention unlawful — Circumstances in which power to detain foreign national prisoners pending deportation exercisable — Immigration Act 1971, Sch 3, para 2 (as amended by Criminal Justice Act 1982, s 64, Sch 10, para 1, Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, s 54(1)(2)(3), Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, s 114(3), Sch 7, para 7 and Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc) Act 2004, s 34(1)(2))

  TORT — Cause of action — False imprisonment — Unlawful exercise of Home Secretary's statutory power to detain foreign national prisoners — Inevitable that prisoners could and would have been detained lawfully — Whether unlawful detention giving rise to cause of action for false imprisonment absent harm

  13 Case(s) considered

  1 Statute considered
• Al Rawi v Security Service

  18 Nov 2009 [2009] EWHC 2959 (QB); [2009] WLR (D) 335, QBD (Silber J)

  04 May 2010 (Liberty intervening) [2010] EWCA Civ 482; [2012] 1 AC 531; [2010] 3 WLR 1069; [2010] 4 All ER 559; [2010] WLR (D) 111, CA

  13 Jul 2011 (JUSTICE intervening) [2011] UKSC 34; [2012] 1 AC 531; [2011] 3 WLR 388; [2012] 1 All ER 1; [2011] WLR (D) 228; Case details, SC(E)

  Subsequent considerations : 4 positive; 2 neutral; 2 negative. Subsequent citations: 179.
  EVIDENCE — Disclosure — Closed material procedure
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  EVIDENCE — Disclosure — Closed material procedure — Claimants detained by foreign states at various locations claiming damages for ill-treatment while in detention — Defendants seeking reliance on closed material to be disclosed to special advocate and court but not to claimants and legal advisers — Whether inherent jurisdiction to sanction closed material procedure in ordinary civil action — Whether appropriate

  5 Case(s) considered
• Flood v Times Newspapers Ltd

  [2009] EWHC 3275 (QB); [2010] EMLR 8, QBD (Tugendhat J)

  13 Jul 2010 [2010] EWCA Civ 804; [2011] 1 WLR 153; [2010] WLR (D) 187, CA

  24 Jan 2011 (appn all) [2011] 1 WLR 487, SC(E)

  21 Mar 2012 [2012] UKSC 11; [2012] 2 AC 273; [2012] 2 WLR 760; [2012] 4 All ER 913; [2012] WLR (D) 93; Case details, SC(E)

  Subsequent considerations : 1 positive; 1 neutral. Subsequent citations: 42.
  COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) — Appeal — Function of appellate court

  DEFAMATION — Privilege — Qualified
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) — Appeal — Function of appellate court — Claimant bringing libel action against publisher of defamatory newspaper article — Trial of defence of qualified privilege — Right to publish matter of public interest balanced against rights of individual to reputation — Whether appellate court entitled to interfere with judge's balancing exercise only if error of principle or conclusion plainly wrong — Whether balancing exercise raising question of law for appellate court to determine

  DEFAMATION — Privilege — Qualified — Newspaper and website publication concerning police investigation into alleged corruption by police officer — Article containing details of allegations — Internal inquiry exonerating police officer — Original article remaining on website unaltered — Whether qualified privilege protecting responsible journalism attaching to both publications when originally published — Whether any qualified privilege attaching to website publication continuing after defendant learning of results of police inquiry into claimant

  10 Case(s) considered
• Lucasfilm Ltd v Ainsworth

  31 Jul 2008 [2008] EWHC 1878 (Ch); [2009] FSR 103; [2009] FSR 2, Ch D (Mann J)

  16 Dec 2009 [2009] EWCA Civ 1328; [2010] Ch 503; [2010] 3 WLR 333; [2010] Bus LR 904; [2010] 3 All ER 329; [2010] 2 All ER (Comm) 1101; [2009] WLR (D) 368, CA

  27 Jul 2011 [2011] UKSC 39; [2012] 1 AC 208; [2011] 3 WLR 487; [2011] Bus LR 1211; [2011] 4 All ER 817; [2012] 1 All ER (Comm) 1011; [2011] WLR (D) 257; Case details, SC(E)

  Subsequent considerations : 2 positive; 1 negative. Subsequent citations: 60.
  CONFLICT OF LAWS — Jurisdiction — Copyright

  COPYRIGHT — Infringement — Sculpture

  CONFLICT OF LAWS — Jurisdiction — Anti-arbitration injunction
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  CONFLICT OF LAWS — Jurisdiction — Copyright — Claimants alleging breach of US copyright by English defendants — Claimants bringing claim in United States for breach of copyright and obtaining judgment in default — Claimants subsequently bringing claim in High Court for breach of US copyright and for enforcement of default judgment — Whether action for breach of US copyright justiciable in England — Whether US default judgment enforceable against defendants in England — Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982, Sch 1 (as substituted by Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (Amendment) Order 1990, art 12(1), Sch 1), art 2

  COPYRIGHT — Infringement — Sculpture — First defendant producing helmet for use by US claimants as costume in film — Helmet based on claimants’ drawings and models produced using sculpting techniques — Defendants later producing replicas of helmet and advertising them for sale on Internet — Some replica helmets sold to US customers — Claimants bringing claim in United States for breach of copyright and obtaining judgment in default — Claimants subsequently commencing claim in High Court for copyright infringement under English law and for infringment of US copyright and enforcement of US default judgment — Whether model helmet protected by copyright as “sculpture” — Whether action for breach of US copyright justiciable in England — Whether US default judgment enforceable against defendants in England — Whether implied assignment of first defendant's copyright to claimant — Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, ss 4, 51 — Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982, Sch 1 (as substituted by Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (Amendment) Order 1990, art 12(1), Sch 1), art 2

  CONFLICT OF LAWS — Jurisdiction — Anti-arbitration injunction — Claimants alleging breach of United States copyright by English defendants — Whether action for breach of US copyright justiciable in England

  COPYRIGHT — Infringement — Sculpture — First defendant producing helmet for use by claimants as costume in film — Helmet based on claimants’ drawings and models — Defendants later producing and selling replicas of helmet — Whether model helmet protected by copyright as “sculpture” — Whether purpose artistic or utilitarian — Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, ss 4, 51

  17 Case(s) considered

  1 Words & Phrases considered
• W (Algeria) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (PP (Algeria) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Z (Algeria) v Secretary of State for the Home Department)

  29 Jul 2010 [2010] EWCA Civ 898, CA (Jacob, Sullivan LJJ, Sir David Keene)

  07 Mar 2012 [2012] UKSC 8; [2012] 2 AC 115; [2012] 2 WLR 610; [2012] 2 All ER 699; [2012] HRLR 15; [2012] WLR (D) 69; (2012) 162 NLJ 390; The Times, 9 March 2012; Case details, SC(E) (Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers PSC, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, Lord Kerr of Tonaghmore, Lord Dyson, Lord Wilson JJSC)

  Subsequent considerations : 1 negative. Subsequent citations: 14.
  IMMIGRATION — Appeal — Special Immigration Appeals Commission
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  IMMIGRATION — Appeal — Special Immigration Appeals Commission — Challenge to Home Secretary’s deportation decisions on ground of likelihood of ill-treatment on return — Evidence of ill-treatment sought to be adduced from source requiring prior absolute and irreversible guarantee of confidentiality — Whether Special Immigration Appeals Commission having jurisdiction on ex parte application to grant such guarantee — Whether exercise of jurisdiction ever appropriate — Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997, s 5(6)(a) — Special Immigration Appeals Commission (Procedure) Rules 2003, r 4(3)

  1 Case considered

  1 Statute considered

  1 Statutory Instrument considered
• Rabone v Pennine Care NHS Trust

  30 Jul 2009 [2009] EWHC 1827 (QB), QBD

  21 Jun 2010 [2010] EWCA Civ 698; [2011] QB 1019; [2011] 3 WLR 603; [2011] PTSR 1028; [2010] WLR (D) 152 {0} {1}, CA

  08 Feb 2012 (INQUEST intervening) [2012] UKSC 2; [2012] 2 AC 72; [2012] 2 WLR 381; [2012] PTSR 497; [2012] 2 All ER 381; [2012] WLR (D) 23; Case details, SC(E)

  Subsequent considerations : 7 positive; 8 neutral; 2 negative; most recently considered: 2022. Subsequent citations: 114.
  HUMAN RIGHTS — Life — Breach
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  HUMAN RIGHTS — Life — Breach — Voluntary psychiatric patient committing suicide having been allowed to leave hospital when at real and immediate risk of death by suicide — Action by parents against NHS trust for breach of patient’s Convention right to life — Proceedings issued after statutory one-year time limit had elapsed — Whether trust under positive obligation to take preventative operational measures to protect life of voluntary psychiatric patient — Whether breach of obligation to investigate death — Whether settlement of negligence claim depriving parents of “victim” status — Whether appropriate to extend time — Whether award of £5,000 damages appropriate — Human Rights Act 1998, s 7, Sch 1, Pt I, art 2

  12 Case(s) considered

  1 Words & Phrases considered

  1 Statute considered