Latest documents

  • Case: UKSC 2018/0203. Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs (Appellant) v London Clubs Management Ltd (Respondent)

    Issues:The correct approach as to determining the value of non-negotiable chips for the purpose of calculating gaming duty.Facts:This case concerns non-negotiable chips and promotional vouchers ("Non-Negs") which are worth their face value when played in a casino game. The issue in the appeal is whether a player who places a bet in one of London Club Management Ltd’s casinos using Non-Negs, has staked "value, in money or money’s worth" with the casino, within the meaning of section 11(10)(a) of the Finance Act 1997. This issue is relevant to London Club Management Ltd’s liability to gaming duty in respect of Non-Negs that are lost to (or otherwise retained by) London Club Management Ltd as banker.

  • Case: Case summary. Case ID: UKSC 2019/0068

    Issues:In a claim for discrimination contrary to the Equality Act 2010, which party bears the burden of proving that discrimination has or has not occurred?Facts:The appellant, Mr Efobi, is a black Nigerian and a citizen of the Republic of Ireland. He has graduate and postgraduate qualifications in information systems. From August 2013, he was employed by the respondent, Royal Mail Group Ltd ("RMG"). He worked as a postman in the operational department but wanted to be employed in the management/IT service area. He applied for many posts but was unsuccessful. He brought proceedings in the Employment Tribunal ("ET") for harassment, victimisation, and direct and indirect race discrimination in relation to his failure to obtain 22 of these posts. The ET rejected his claims of discrimination, but his harassment and victimisation claims succeeded in part. Mr Efobi successfully appealed the ET’s discrimination findings in the Employment Appeal Tribunal ("EAT"). The EAT concluded that the ET had erred in its approach to the burden of proof. RMG successfully appealed the EAT’s decision to the Court of Appeal. Mr Efobi now appeals to the Supreme Court.

  • Case: Case summary. Case ID: UKSC 2019/0103

    Issues:Did the sale and leaseback of a care home involve the disposal of the owner’s entire interest, such that it effectively lost the benefit of zero-rating under paragraph 36(2) of Schedule 10 to the Value Added Tax Act 1994?Facts:In March 2013, Balhousie Care Ltd acquired a care home at Deveron Way, Huntly, Aberdeenshire on a zero-rated basis for VAT purposes. In order to finance the acquisition and further developments, it entered into a sale-and-leaseback arrangement with Target Healthcare REIT. Pursuant to that arrangement, Balhousie Care conveyed the land to Target and Target immediately granted the land on a long lease back to Balhousie. HMRC considered this involved the disposal of Balhousie Care’s entire interest in the care home. It sought to impose a VAT self-supply charge on Balhousie Holdings Ltd (an entity which was part of the same VAT group) under paragraph 36(2) of Schedule 10 to the Value Added Tax Act 1994 and issued a penalty notice. Balhousie Holdings successfully appealed to the First-tier Tribunal but HMRC’s approach was upheld by the Upper Tribunal and Inner House of the Court of Session.

  • Case: Case summary. Case ID: UKSC 2020/0191

    Issues:(1) Does a child named as a dependent on a parent’s asylum application have any protection from refoulement? (2) Can a return order be made under the 1980 Hague Convention even where a child has protection from refoulement? (3) Should the High Court be slow to stay an application under the 1980 Hague Convention prior to determination of an application for asylum?Facts:G is an only child of divorced parents. Until February 2020, her parents lived near to each other in South Africa. However, after telling friends that she was lesbian, G’s mother began to experience persecution from her family in South Africa. As a result, she fled to England with G and made an application for asylum. Upon discovering that G had been taken to England, G’s father made an application for her return under the 1980 Hague Convention. At first instance, Lieven J held that the father’s application for a return order should be stayed pending the determination of G’s mother’s asylum claim. The Court of Appeal considered that, in the circumstances, the High Court was not barred from determining the father’s application for a return order, nor was it barred from making such an order. The mother now appeals to the Supreme Court.

  • Case: Case summary. Case ID: UKSC 2019/0210

    Issues:This case concerns conditions in Hungarian prisons, and the approach to be taken in assessing and relying on assurances as to prison conditions given by the Hungarian authorities. The Supreme Court is asked to decide, when a court is considering whether to make or uphold an extradition order, and is obliged to assess an assurance given to the UK regarding future detention: (1) Is there a special test for admitting evidence relating to assurances given to the courts or authorities of countries other than the United Kingdom? (2) If so, was the High Court right that the court should exercise very considerable caution before admitting such evidence and that it should only do so if satisfied that the evidence is manifestly credible, directly relevant to the issue to be decided and of real importance for the purpose of that decision? Facts:The respondent, the Mateszalka District Court, Hungary, sought the extradition of the appellant, Mr Zabolotnyi, to Hungary pursuant to a European Arrest Warrant. On 5 September 2017, the District Judge ordered Mr Zabolotnyi’s extradition to Hungary. Mr Zabolotnyi appealed to the High Court. During his extradition hearing, Mr Zabolotnyi had argued that he faced a real risk of being detained in overcrowded prison conditions in Hungary, in breach of his rights under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Hungarian Ministry of Justice gave an assurance guaranteeing that, if extradited, Mr Zabolotnyi would be held in conditions compliant with Article 3. However, Mr Zabolotnyi argued that this assurance was unreliable. On appeal to the High Court, he sought to rely on fresh evidence from individuals extradited to Hungary from both the UK and Germany who complained that they had been subject to comparable assurances which were not honoured. The High Court held that there was no substantial risk that Mr Zabolotnyi’s Article 3 rights would be breached if he was extradited to Hungary. It held that evidence of past breaches of assurances given to other member states would only be admissible if it was manifestly credible, directly relevant to the issue to be decided and of real importance for the purpose of that decision. Applying that test to Mr Zabolotnyi’s case, the evidence relating to breaches of the German assurances was held to be inadmissible. The evidence concerning the UK assurances was considered to be limited. The appeal was dismissed. Mr Zabolotnyi now appeals against that ruling to the Supreme Court.

  • Case: Case summary. Case ID: UKSC 2019/0065

    Issues:Whether the Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements guidance is unlawful. Facts: The Appellant has five convictions for indecent assault on minors. The Appellant challenged the legality of the arrangements made by police in South Yorkshire for the retention and disclosure of information and data relating to the Appellant and these assaults. It was common ground that the retention by the police of certain data relating to the Appellant, which might in certain circumstances be disclosed, engaged article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights ("ECHR"). However, the High Court held that the scheme for disclosure does provide adequate guarantees against arbitrariness and is "in accordance with the law" [HC 56]. Moreover, the collection, ordering and possible disclosure of data is in the pursuit of a legitimate aim, namely the interests of public safety, the prevention of crime and the protection of rights and freedoms of others. The Appellant appealed and the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The Appellant now appeals to the Supreme Court.

  • Case: Case summary. Case ID: UKSC 2019/0062

    Issues:Did title to land, which was gifted to the Council for use as a school under the School Sites Act 1841, revert to the donor’s estate when the school ceased to operate from the gifted land? Facts:The Respondents are heirs of the late Robert Fleming, who conveyed land to Oxfordshire County Council in 1914 and 1928 under the School Sites Act 1841 for use as part of Nettlebed School. The Council erected a new school building on the gifted land and continued to use its existing site for the school’s kitchen and dining room. In the late 1990s, the Council decided to relocate the school. It proceeded to build a new school on adjacent land, and transferred the students to the new premises in or about February 2006. The old premises ceased to be used as a school and the site was sold on 28 September 2007 for the sum of £1,355,000. The Respondents claim that 93.17% of site represented land gifted by Mr Fleming and that, because that land had ceased to be used by the school before the sale, it had "reverted" to Mr Fleming’s estate. The result, they claimed, was that 93.17% of the sale proceeds was held on trust for them as Mr Fleming’s heirs. The Council denied this, claiming that its actions did not trigger a reverter under the 1841 Act. The High Court dismissed the Respondents’ claim but the Court of Appeal overturned this decision on appeal. The Council now appeals to the Supreme Court to restore the High Court’s decision.

  • Case: Case summary. Case ID: UKSC 2019/0068

    Issues:In a claim for discrimination contrary to the Equality Act 2010, which party bears the burden of proving that discrimination has or has not occurred?Facts:The appellant, Mr Efobi, is a black Nigerian and a citizen of the Republic of Ireland. He has graduate and postgraduate qualifications in information systems. From August 2013, he was employed by the respondent, Royal Mail Group Ltd ("RMG"). He worked as a postman in the operational department but wanted to be employed in the management/IT service area. He applied for many posts but was unsuccessful. He brought proceedings in the Employment Tribunal ("ET") for harassment, victimisation, and direct and indirect race discrimination in relation to his failure to obtain 22 of these posts. The ET rejected his claims of discrimination, but his harassment and victimisation claims succeeded in part. Mr Efobi successfully appealed the ET’s discrimination findings in the Employment Appeal Tribunal ("EAT"). The EAT concluded that the ET had erred in its approach to the burden of proof. RMG successfully appealed the EAT’s decision to the Court of Appeal. Mr Efobi now appeals to the Supreme Court.

  • Case: Case summary. Case ID: UKSC 2019/0086

    Issues:Where a court or tribunal is considering, in accordance with Part 5A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (the 2002 Act), whether the proposed deportation of a "foreign criminal" interferes with that individual’s rights to private and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights outweighing the public interest in favour of deportation, how is the test under s117C(4) of the 2002 Act of "very significant obstacles" to integration of that individual in the country to which it is proposed they be deported to be interpreted and applied? Facts:Mr Sanambar was born in Iran in 1995. He arrived in the UK with his mother in 2005, aged 9. Mr Sanambar went on to commit a number of criminal offences. In 2013, the Secretary of State decided that Mr Sanambar should be deported to Iran, finding that the public interest in deportation outweighed other factors and would not breach his right to private and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Mr Sanambar succeeded in overturning the Secretary of State’s deportation decision on appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (FtT). However, the Upper Tribunal (UT) set aside the FtT’s decision on the basis the FtT had made a material error of law. The FtT had failed to apply the new formulation of the Immigration Rules and sections 117A-D of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 and had erroneously focused on Mr Sanambar’s ties to Iran under an older formulation of the Rules. The UT re-made the decision and dismissed Mr Sanambar’s appeal, finding that while he had been resident in the UK for most of his life and was socially and culturally integrated in the UK, there were not "very significant obstacles" to his integration in Iran. Mr Sanambar spoke Farsi, was intelligent and capable of adapting to life in Iran and had connections there. The Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the UT. Mr Sanambar now appeals to the Supreme Court.

  • Case: Case summary. Case ID: UKSC 2020/0074

    Issues:(1) Does the Court of Session and/or the Sheriff Court already have power to grant a warrant for inhibition and arrestment on the dependence of an application to an Employment Tribunal by a worker alleging unlawful work and workplace related discrimination and/or harassment on grounds of sex and/or race and/or religion or belief? (2) If the Court of Session and/or the Sheriff Court have this power, does the requirement for an applicant in an Employment Tribunal claim to raise a court action constitute a breach of the common law and EU principles of effectiveness or effective remedy? (3) If the Court of Session and/or the Sheriff Court do not have this power, does this constitute a breach of EU law?Facts:In July 2016, the Employment Tribunal held that the appellant, Ms Anwar, had been subjected to unlawful workplace and work related harassment on the grounds of her sex and her religion or beliefs. The Tribunal ordered Ms Anwar’s former employer, the charity "Roshni", and her former line manager, Mr Ali Khan, to pay Ms Anwar £74,647.96 on a joint and several basis. Ms Anwar sought to enforce the judgment. Roshni’s bank statements indicated that, as at 1 August 2016, it had more than £68,000 in its account. However, by 7 October 2016, that sum had fallen to around £4,000. Ms Anwar believes that Roshni took steps to dispose of its funds to prevent Ms Anwar from receiving the sums due to her under the Employment Tribunal’s order. She has not yet received any of the sums due under the order, and has no reasonable expectation of ever doing so. Ms Anwar maintains that she would not be in this position if she had been able to effect an arrestment of funds on the dependence of her Employment Tribunal application. She issued a petition for judicial review against the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. Ms Anwar claims that – because there is no express legislation which provides Employment Tribunals with the power to grant an arrestment in cases like hers – the Secretary of State has failed properly to implement in Scotland the provisions of Directive 2000/43/EC implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin and Directive 2000/78/EC establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation. She argues that this is incompatible with her EU law right to an effective remedy. The Outer House of the Court of Session dismissed Ms Anwar’s petition for judicial review. Her appeal was dismissed by the Inner House. Ms Anwar now appeals to the Supreme Court.

Featured documents