*BAA Ltd v Revenue and Customs Commissioners

Value added tax Input tax. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the taxpayer company's appeal against a decision of the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) which had found that it was not entitled to the recovery, as input tax, of VAT incurred through the provision of professional services to a company during its share purchase of the taxpayer. The court found that, at the relevant times, there had not been a continuous and unbroken economic activity nor had there been a 'direct and immediate' link between the supplies on which the purchasing company had incurred input tax and the supplies on which the taxpayer had charged output tax.

*A Oy

European Union Freedom of establishment. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of arts 49 and 54 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union in the course of proceedings brought by A Oy, a company governed by Finnish law, against a decision of the Finnish Central Tax Board that A Oy could not, in the context of a merger with a Swedish subsidiary, deduct from tax that subsidiary's losses.

*Ricoh Europe Holdings BV and other Companies v Spratt and another

Company Winding-up. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, upheld a decision that, upon a company being placed into members' voluntary liquidation, once contingent claims had been admitted to proof, the liquidators had no alternative but to proceed to value those contingent claims under r4.182A of the Insolvency Rules 1986, , and then to distribute the net assets to the members after satisfying the creditors in the amount of the valuations. There was no legal duty on a liquidator who had already valued contingent claims and had admitted them to proof in the amount of the valuation to provide for the contingency in full by making a reserve against any distribution to members of the company.

Acute Property Developments Ltd v Apostolou and others

Estoppel Company. The third defendant, S, was induced by the first defendant, A, to make payments to A's wife and a business he controlled, in respect of building work carried out by the claimant company, of which A was a director. A and his wife kept hold of the money. S sought to claim that the claimant was estopped from claiming the cost of the work from him, as the payments he had made discharged any liability he had for the building work. The Chancery Division held that S was unable to establish the necessary reliance to found the estoppel which he claimed.

Weavering Capital (UK) Ltd (in liquidation) and others v Peterson and others

Company Director. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that findings against the ninth and tenth defendants, who had been director and senior employee of a company that had become insolvent following a fraud committed by members of the company by a sham hedge fund arrangement, had been justified on the evidence.

*Re Digital Satellite Warranty Cover Ltd and another v Financial Services Authority

Insurance Contract of insurance. The Supreme Court dismissed the appellant businesses' appeal against a finding that their extended warranty agreements in respect of electrical equipment had fallen within a class of general insurance contracts as defined in the (Regulated Activities) Order 2001, . Further, the insurance business classes in the Annex to the First Council Directive (EEC) 73-239 (on the co-ordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the taking-up and pursuit of the business of direct insurance other than life assurance) could not have been intended to limit the freedom of member states to regulate other categories of business. Accordingly, the winding up orders made against the appellants by the Financial Services Authority had been valid.

Financial Services Authority v Asset L.I. Inc (t/a Land Investment Inc) and others

Financial Services Financial Services Authority. The claimant Financial Services Authority issued proceedings against the defendants alleging that the 'land-banking' schemes established and operated by the first and third defendant companies were collective investment schemes (CISs) within the definition in s235 of the and that the defendants had done so in breach of ss19 and 21 of the Act. The Chancery Division held that the schemes had been CISs and that the first and third defendants had acted in breach of ss19 and 21 of the Act.

AIB Group (UK) plc v Mark Redler & Co Solicitors

Solicitor Duty. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that a judge, in deciding certain preliminary issues in a bank's claim against the defendant firm of solicitors for breach of trust in connection with a re-mortgage transaction, had been entitled to find that the solicitors had acted in breach of trust in failing to use the claimant's advance to fully discharge the prior charge on the property, but had erred in finding that the breach was limited to the amount of the shortfall which would have been necessary to fully discharge the prior charge.

Barons Finance Ltd and another company v Makanju

Appeal Leave. The claimant loan company obtained judgment against the defendant when he defaulted on repayments. The defendant sought permission to appeal out of time. The Mercantile Court of the Queen's Bench Division held that permission would be granted.

Bonham-Carter and another v Situ Ventures Ltd

Company Director. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that a judge had erred in construing an agreement for the sale of a company as not giving the defendant the right to require the claimants to cease to be non-executive directors of the company.