Latest Cases

Income tax – Penalty. The taxpayer's appeal against penalites imposed on him by the Revenue and Customs Commissioners (HMRC) for the late filing of individual tax returns pursuant to Sch 55 to the Finance Act 2009 was dismissed by the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)(the FTT). On appeal, the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) dismissed the taxpayer's appeal. The tribunal decided that: (i) on the balance of probabilities, notices to file had been sent to the taxpayer in respect of each of the tax years in question; and (ii) the taxpayer's contention that it had been disproportionate to impose those penalties in circumstances where no tax had been due did not amount to a special circumstance for the purposes of para 16 of Sch 55 to that Act.

Judgment – Enforcement. The wording of Sch 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 preserved the long established principle that a debtor's goods became bound by a writ from a particular point in time, and that it was only once the first writ was satisfied out of proceeds that the surplus (if any) could be applied to the second writ, in accordance with writ priority. The Queen's Bench Division so ruled in a dispute between two creditors (365 and Alvini) over which of them was entitled to the benefit of a payment of £12,050 which the debtor had made to an enforcement agent of Court Enforcement Services (CES), in relation to the Alvini debt, in circumstances where the writ of control concerning the 365 debt had been received by its enforcement agent first in time, and where 365 had deferred further action, and had been expecting its first instalment, under an agreement made with the debtor. The court dismissed CES's application to set aside a master's order, requiring it to pay over the money it had collected from the debtor to 365's enforcement agents. It held that priorities were established by the writs and their date of receipt, irrespective of the identities of the Hight Court Enforcement Officers in any given set of circumstances.

Conflict of laws – Jurisdiction. The claimant's application for a declaration that, among other things, the courts of England and Wales had no power under the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 to determine any of the causes in issue failed. Among other things, the court held that an anchor claim issued after the relevant claim was capable of conferring judgment, provided that the other requirements of the anchor provisions were satisfied.

Criminal law – Proceeds of crime. The judge had been right to conclude that the defendant had been the beneficial owner of the property subject to a charge and had been right to include the value of that interest in the available assets for the purposes of the confiscation proceedings as he had. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, dismissed the defendant's appeal against a confiscation order of £43,344.01, following his conviction for production of cannabis.

Capital allowances – Claims. The words of para 82(1) of Sch 18 to the Finance Act 1998 were clear and unambiguous: a claim for capital allowances could be made at any time up to whichever was the last of the four dates specified in subparagraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d). Consequently, the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) dismissed the appeal by the Revenue and Customs Commissioners against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber), taking the view that the FTT had correctly held that as the taxpayer's claims for capital allowances had fallen within para 82(1)(b) of Sch 18, they had been timeously made.

Criminal evidence – Missing evidence. The judge had been right to allow the case to proceed when evidence gathered by the police, relevant to the defendant's defence, had been destroyed by water damage and had been unavailable for the trial. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, having set out guidance on situations of missing records, dismissed the defendant's appeal against conviction for indecency with a child.

Damages – Personal injury. The claimant was entitled to damages of £79,755, as there was little difficulty in concluding that she had established, on the balance of probabilities, that she had been the subject of five further occasions of abuse by the defendant, in addition to two occasions for which he had been convicted of sexual abuse. The Queen's Bench Division awarded £10,000 as aggravated damages, and special damages of £10,530 for therapy and travelling costs.

Contempt of court – Committal. Tommy Robinson was committed to prison for a period of 19 weeks and had to be released once half of that period had been served. The Divisional Court imposed that penalty for his reckless disobedience of an important court order imposed to protect the integrity of a trial and subsequent trials, and of conduct which created a substantial risk of a serious impediment to the integrity of the trial process.

Bankruptcy – Order. The applicant's application to annul a bankruptcy order made against him failed. The Chancery Division held that the applicant's conduct demonstrated a wholesale disregard for the orders of the Court and the procedures that it had in place for dealing with cases justly and at proportionate cost. Further, it was not appropriate to stay the application pending payment of outstanding costs liabilities in circumstances where the source of funds remained unknown and there was a real question as to whether they were monies within the bankruptcy estate.

Value added tax – Input tax. The provision of the cars by the taxpayer NHS Trust to its employees under a salary sacrifice scheme (the car scheme) could not be regarded as a supply of services because it had been de-supplied by the Value Added Tax (Treatment of Transactions) Order 1992, SI 1992/630. It followed that the leasing of the cars by the Trust could not be an economic activity because that required a supply of services. However, pursuant to s 41(3) of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 and para 3 of the Contracted Out Services Direction, the four-year limit imposed by the Revenue and Customs Commissioners was reasonable. Consequently, the Upper Tribunal (Tax Chamber) allowed the Trust's claim for recovery of all of the VAT incurred in relation to the car scheme but limited the claim to the period from 1 October 2012 to 31 January 2017.