Results: 462

• 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
• R (Morge) v Hampshire County Council

  17 Nov 2009 [2009] EWHC 2940 (Admin); [2010] Env LR 432, QBD (Judge Bidder QC)

  10 Jun 2010 [2010] EWCA Civ 608; [2010] PTSR 1882; [2010] LGR 961; [2010] WLR (D) 145, CA

  19 Jan 2011 [2011] UKSC 2; [2011] 1 WLR 268; [2011] PTSR 337; [2011] 1 All ER 744; [2011] LGR 271; [2011] WLR (D) 5; Case details, SC(E)

  Subsequent considerations : 1 neutral. Subsequent citations: 124.
  EUROPEAN UNION — Environment — Natural habitats

  PLANNING — Development — Natural habitats
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  EUROPEAN UNION — Environment — Natural habitats — Local planning authority granting permission for development affecting species or habitat of European protected species — Whether effects of development constituting “deliberate disturbance” of protected species — Whether planning decision made in breach of requirements of Council Directive — Council Directive 92/43/EEC, art 12(1)(b)

  PLANNING — Development — Natural habitats — European protected species — Local planning authority granting planning permission for development affecting species or habitat of bats — Whether effects of development constituting “deliberate disturbance” of protected species — Whether necessary to consider indirect, as well as direct, impact upon “deterioration or destruction of breeding sites or resting places” — Whether planning decision made in breach of requirements of Habitats Directive — Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c) Regulations 1994 (as amended by Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c) (Amendment) Regulations 2007, reg 5 and Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Regulations 2009, reg 7), regs 3(4), 39 — Council Directive 92/43/EEC, art 12(1)(b)(d)

  5 Case(s) considered

  2 Words & Phrases considered

  1 EU Enactment considered

  1 Statutory Instrument 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

• R v Rollins (R v McInerney (Michael))

  09 Oct 2009 [2009] EWCA Crim 1941; [2010] Bus LR 734; [2010] 1 All ER 1183; [2010] 1 Cr App R 14; [2009] WLR (D) 294, CA

  28 Jul 2010 [2010] UKSC 39; [2010] 1 WLR 1922; [2010] Bus LR 1529; [2010] 4 All ER 880; [2011] 1 Cr App R 4; [2010] WLR (D) 210; Case details, SC(E)

  Subsequent citations: 7.
  FINANCIAL SERVICES — Market abuse — Penalties and injunction
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  FINANCIAL SERVICES — Market abuse — Penalties and injunction — Institution of proceedings — Financial Services Authority — Whether FSA empowered to institute proceedings for criminal offences under statutes other than Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 — Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, ss 1(1), 401, 402 (as amended by Counter-Terrorism Act 2008, Sch 7(7), para 33(4)) — Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, ss 327(1), 328(1) (as amended by Enterprise Act 2002, Sch 2, para 40(17))

  2 Case(s) considered

  4 Statutes considered
• R v Chaytor (R v Devine, R v Morley)

  30 Jul 2010 [2010] EWCA Crim 1910; [2010] 2 Cr App R 394; [2010] WLR (D) 214 {0} {1}, CA

  01 Dec 2010 [2010] UKSC 52; [2011] 1 AC 684; [2010] 3 WLR 1707; [2011] 1 All ER 805; [2011] 1 Cr App R 274; [2010] WLR (D) 311; Case details, SC(E)

  Subsequent considerations : 1 positive; 1 neutral. Subsequent citations: 15.
  PARLIAMENT — Privilege — Proceedings in Parliament
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  PARLIAMENT — Privilege — Proceedings in Parliament — Members of Parliament submitting claim forms for expenses and allowances under scheme established by House of Commons — Criminal proceedings against members for false accounting in respect of claims — Whether submission of claims “proceedings in Parliament” — Whether claims within exclusive cognisance of Parliament — Whether privilege precluding criminal proceedings — Bill of Rights 1689, art 9

  3 Case(s) considered

  1 Words & Phrases considered

  1 Statute considered

• R v Hamer

  17 Aug 2010 [2010] EWCA Crim 2053; [2011] 1 WLR 528; [2011] 1 Cr App R 23; [2010] WLR (D) 235, CA

  Subsequent citations: 4.
  CRIME — Evidence — Character
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  CRIME — Evidence — Character — Defendant tried on charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm — Defendant having no previous convictions or cautions — Penalty notice previously issued to defendant in respect of unrelated suspected public order offence — Whether evidence of notice admissible in relation to defendant's character — Whether defendant entitled to good character direction — Whether jury misdirected — Whether trial fair and conviction safe — Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, s 2(1) (as amended by Penalties for Disorderly Behaviour (Amendment of Minimum Age) Order 2004, art 2)

  1 Case considered

  1 Statute 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

• Official Solicitor v Yemoh

  15 Dec 2010 [2010] EWHC 3727 (Ch); [2011] 1 WLR 1450; [2011] 4 All ER 200; [2011] 2 FLR 371; [2010] WLR (D) 334, Ch D (Anthony Elleray QC)

  ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATES — Intestacy — Immovable property
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATES — Intestacy — Immovable property — Deceased domiciled in Ghana party to polygamous marriages contracted in accordance with Ghanaian customary law — Whether deceased's polygamous marriages recognised for purposes of succession to immovable property in England and Wales — Whether surviving wives “spouse” of deceased — Administration of Estates Act 1925, s 46(1) (as amended by Intestates' Estates Act 1952, s 1(2), Family Provision Act 1966, s 1(2)(a), Administration of Justice Act 1977, s 28(1) and Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1981, s 1(1), Sch 1, Pt I)

  3 Case(s) considered

  1 Words & Phrases considered

  1 Statute considered
• Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (No 2)

  11 Jun 2010 [2010] EWHC 1332 (QB); [2010] Lloyd's Rep FC 504; [2010] WLR (D) 148, QBD (Mitting J)

  13 Jan 2011 [2011] EWCA Civ 1; [2012] QB 101; [2011] 3 WLR 714; [2011] 2 All ER 802, CA

  19 Jun 2013 [2013] UKSC 38; [2013] UKSC 39; [2014] AC 700; [2013] 3 WLR 179; [2013] 4 All ER 495; [2013] 4 All ER 533; [2013] Lloyd's Rep FC 580; [2013] HRLR 30; [2013] WLR (D) 244, SC(E) (Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury PSC, Lord Dyson MR, Lord Hope of Craighead DPSC, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Kerr of Tonaghmore, Lord Clarke of Stone-cum-Ebony, Lord Sumption, Lord Reed, Lord Carnwath JJSC)

  Subsequent considerations : 21 positive; 5 neutral; 4 negative; most recently considered: 2022. Subsequent citations: 353.
  STATUTORY INSTRUMENT — Validity — -

  CROWN — Order in Council — Validity

  SUPREME COURT — Jurisdiction — Evidence
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENT — Validity — - — Order directing persons operating in UK financial sector not to do business with claimant with aim of inhibiting development of nuclear weapons by Iran— Whether claimant should have been given opportunity to make representations before order made— Whether order “proportionate” having regard to risk to national interests of United Kingdom posed by Iranian development of nuclear weapons— Human Rights Act 1998, Sch 1, Pt I, art 6(1), Pt II, art 1— Counter-Terrorism Act 2008, Sch 7, paras 1(4), 9(6)— Financial Restrictions (Iran) Order 2009 (SI 2009/2725)

  CROWN — Order in Council — Validity — Treasury making Order in Council containing direction prohibiting transactions or business relationships with Iranian bank in order to prevent facilitation of production of nuclear weapons in Iran— Bank not given opportunity to make representations before making of Order— Bank applying to set aside direction— Whether requirement that least measure be used— Whether existence of less intrusive measure use of which would not significantly compromise legitimate aim of restriction relevant to its proportionality— Whether Order proportionate— Whether procedurally flawed— Whether Parliament excluding common law right to make representations before direction made— Whether Convention right to fair hearing engaged when direction made and laid before Parliament— Whether statutory procedure breaching Convention rights— Whether Order lawful— Human Rights Act 1998 (c 42), Sch 1, Pt I, art 6, Pt II, art 1 — Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 (c 28), ss 62, 63, Sch 7

  CROWN — Order in Council — Validity — Treasury making Order in Council containing direction prohibiting transactions or business relationships with Iranian bank in order to prevent facilitation of production of nuclear weapons in Iran— Bank not given opportunity to make representations before making of Order— Bank applying to set aside direction— Whether requirement that least measure be used— Whether Order proportionate— Whether procedurally flawed— Whether Parliament excluding common law right to make representations before direction made— Whether statutory procedure breaching Convention rights— Whether Order lawful— Human Rights Act 1998 (c 42), Sch 1, Pt I, art 6, Pt II, art 1 — Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 (c 28), ss 62, 63, Sch 7

  SUPREME COURT — Jurisdiction — Evidence — Closed material procedure— Order in Council containing direction prohibiting transactions or business relationships with Iranian bank in order to prevent facilitation of production of nuclear weapons in Iran— Bank’s appeal from court’s refusal to set aside Order— Treasury proposing to rely on closed material in resisting appeal— Whether jurisdiction for Supreme Court to entertain closed material— Whether appropriate to entertain material— Constitutional Reform Act 2005 (c 4), s 40

  8 Case(s) considered

  3 Statutes considered

  1 Statutory Instrument considered
• R (B) v Islington London Borough Council

  20 Aug 2010 [2010] EWHC 2539 (Admin); [2011] PTSR 716; [2010] WLR (D) 236, QBD (Cranston J)

  Subsequent considerations : 1 positive. Subsequent citations: 3.
  EDUCATION — Local education authority — Duty to make special educational provision
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  EDUCATION — Local education authority — Duty to make special educational provision — Local authority making statement of special educational needs in respect of child — Statement ceasing at end of school year when young person turning 19 — Young person requiring two more years of secondary education to complete A-levels — Whether local education authority having duty to maintain statement of special educational needs beyond end of school year when young person turning 19 — Meaning of “child” — Education Act 1996 (as amended by Local Education Authorities and Children's Services Authorities (Integration of Functions) Order 2010, art 5(1), Sch 2, para 7(2)), ss 2(5), 312(5), 324(1)

  4 Case(s) considered

  1 Words & Phrases considered

  1 Statute considered