Evidence Tribunal. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the taxpayer's appeal in proceedings concerning an alleged missing trader intra-community fraud, held that the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) had been entitled to find that the First-tier Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) had erred in refusing to allow the Revenue and Customs Commissioner to rely upon material in regard to the conviction of the director of one company involved in the fraud. Although that company had not been linked to the taxpayer, the Revenue sought to show that that company had acted as a knowing party to the fraudulent series of transactions.
Immigration Leave to remain. A mother and her daughter had been refused leave to remain in the UK outside the Immigration Rules by the Secretary of State. The First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) found that the interference with the family's rights under art8 of the European Convention on Human Rights would not be disproportionate and dismissed their appeal. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) dismissed the appeal on the paper, the parties having not provided written responses to the tribunal's directions. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the family's appeal on the grounds that there had been no error of law in the appeal having been dealt with by the tribunal on the papers and because there had been no arguable error in law of the disposal of the appeal under art8 of the Convention.
Immigration Appeal. The appellants had been refused leave to remain in the UK by the Secretary of State. Their appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) was dismissed. Their appeals to the Upper Tribunal was also dismissed, the tribunal finding that, in the circumstances, the FTT had acted without jurisdiction in entertaining their appeals. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, having found that it was open to the tribunals to take a point on jurisdiction of its own motion, set aside the upper tribunal's decision because of the way in which the judge had exercised his duties. However, the Court of Appeal re-made the decision and dismissed the appeal.
Conflict of laws Jurisdiction. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal by Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant JSC (JSC) against a decision of the Court of Appeal which upheld the decision that AES Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant LLP (AESUK) was entitled to a declaration made pursuant to the court's power under s37 of the (the 1981 Act) that the claim against it by JSC could only properly be brought in arbitration together with an injunction in relation to the bringing of proceedings against it by JSC. The Supreme Court agreed with the Commercial Court and the Court of Appeal that the Arbitration 1996 Act had not intended or should not be treated sub silentio as effectively abrogating the protection enjoyed under s37 of the 1981 Act in respect of their negative rights under an arbitration agreement by those who stipulated for an arbitration with an English seat.
Constitutional law Foreign sovereign state. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that a judge had gone too far in his interpretation of s20(1)(b) of the which provided sovereign immunity to members of the family 'forming part of the household' of the sovereign or head of state. The immunity attached to members of the 'household' for the purposes of s20(1)(b) was the same as that applicable to family members of diplomats, namely, inter alia, the spouse, civil partner and minor children of the diplomat. However, the judge's finding that two princes, who were members of the family of the King of Saudi Arabia, had not been members of his household was upheld, and they could not therefore defeat the claimant's petition for unfair prejudice in relation to the affairs of the first defendant English company by asserting sovereign immunity.
Practice Summary judgment. The claimant had issued proceedings against the defendant as guarantor and had obtained summary judgment. Following the defendant's appeal, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that there was no evidence which supported his alleged crossclaim and no other compelling reason for the matter to go to trial.
Family proceedings Jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, reiterated that the best interests of the child was one of the cardinal questions to be considered in the construction and application of art15(1) of Council Regulation (EC) 2201-2003 (concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility) (Brussels II). Although the judge had misdirected himself in that regard, it had been clear that, had he properly directed himself, he would have reached the same decision, namely, to request that the proceedings for the future care of the child be transferred to Slovakia.
Tort Harassment. The defendant bank made or attempted to make over 500 telephone calls to the claimant in respect of her accounts with the bank. The claimant brought proceedings against the bank seeking damages for harassment. The judge found that the calls had amounted to harassment and awarded 7,500 in damages. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the bank's appeal on the basis that the judge had been right to characterise the calls as intimidation and there was no possible ground for interfering with the judge's assessment of damages.
Judgment Default judgment. The claimant company brought a claim against the first defendant former employee alleging that she had used her position at the claimant to divert a business opportunity from the claimant to the second defendant company, which was owned and controlled by the first defendant. The claimant obtained judgment in default of acknowledgement of service. The defendants applied unsuccessfully to have the default judgment set aside. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the defendants' appeal as although the judge had erred in his approach to the application to set aside the default judgment, on the material which had been put before the court, the defendants had had no real prospect of successfully defending the claims against them.
Partnership Expulsion. The claimant and first three defendants had created a new concept of asset management and wished to go into business. As they required funding, they approached the fourth defendant limited partnership. The claimant and first three defendants became partners in that limited partnership and agreed on a division of profits. The limited partnership subsequently became a limited liability partnership. Following the claimant's notice of removal as a member of the partnership, he was not paid any distribution of profits for that financial year or the successive two years. He issued proceedings seeking his share of the profits. The Chancery Division judge dismissed his claim. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, also dismissed his appeal on the grounds that there had been no partnership between the claimant and first three defendants prior to their joining the limited partnership and because, under the terms of a side letter between the parties, there was no obligation to make a pro rata allocation of profits.