Before: LORD JUSTICE LLOYD LORD JUSTICE LEWISON and LADY JUSTICE GLOSTER Between: - and -

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "Before: LORD JUSTICE LLOYD LORD JUSTICE LEWISON and LADY JUSTICE GLOSTER Between: - and -"

Transcription

1 Neutral Citation Number: [2013] EWCA Civ 669 Case No: B5/2012/2579 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM THE WANDSWORTH COUNTY COURT HIS HONOUR JUDGE WINSTANLEY Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL Before: Date: 14 June 2013 LORD JUSTICE LLOYD LORD JUSTICE LEWISON and LADY JUSTICE GLOSTER Between: SUPERSTRIKE LTD - and - MARINO RODRIGUES Claimant Respondent Defendant Appellant Martin Westgate Q.C. and Ben Chataway (instructed by Howells LLP) for the Appellant Ranjit Bhose Q.C. and Jennifer Oscroft (instructed by Coffin Mew LLP) for the Respondent Hearing date: 20 May Judgment

2 Lord Justice Lloyd: Introduction and summary 1. This is another case about the legislation concerning tenants deposits. Landlords of private sector residential property require their tenants to pay a deposit as security for the performance of the tenants obligations under the tenancy. This could give rise to difficulties, especially for a tenant seeking to recover the deposit on leaving the premises. Until 2007 there was no legislation in the UK dealing with this subject. There had been a voluntary code, but it did not work well. Eventually, legislation was introduced in the Housing Act 2004, which was brought into effect with a commencement date of 6 April This appeal, from an order of His Honour Judge Winstanley in the Wandsworth County Court made on 17 September 2012, raises issues about the application of that legislation, where a deposit was paid under a tenancy already in existence on that commencement date. 2. A number of decisions of the courts about the legislation revealed problems in the drafting of the Act. It was therefore amended, with effect from 6 April 2012, by the Localism Act The events relevant to this appeal took place before that date, so we are concerned with the original text of the Act, but I will also refer to the amendments made in The Defendant, who appeals with permission granted by Lewison LJ, took an assured shorthold tenancy of the relevant premises from the Claimant dated 8 January 2007 for a fixed term of one year less one day, at a monthly rent of , and paid a deposit of that amount under the terms of the tenancy agreement at that time. At the expiry of the fixed term, by the effect of section 5 of the Housing Act 1988, he became entitled to a statutory periodic tenancy on the equivalent terms. On 22 June 2011 the Claimant served a notice under section 21 of the 1988 Act requiring possession. The issue is whether it was entitled to do so, notwithstanding that the deposit, which remained outstanding, had not been protected by being dealt with in accordance with a scheme authorised under the 2004 Act. 4. The Claimant applied to the county court for possession, under the accelerated procedure which applies where notice has been given under section 21 in relation to an assured shorthold tenancy. A possession order was made on 8 May 2012 but it was then set aside by Deputy District Judge Whiteley on 26 June 2012, on the grounds of non-compliance with the provisions relating to tenants deposits. The Claimant s appeal was allowed by His Honour Judge Winstanley, from whose order the present appeal is brought. 5. The appellant was represented before us by Mr Westgate Q.C. leading Mr Chataway, and the respondent by Mr Bhose Q.C. leading Ms Oscroft. The escalation of representation suggests a perception of the importance of the issues, for landlords and for tenants, which does not surprise me. I am grateful to Counsel for their assistance in relation to a problem which is of some importance. 6. For reasons which I set out below, my conclusion is that the legislation did require the tenant s deposit to be held in accordance with an authorised scheme, no later than the end of January Since it was not so held, the landlord was not entitled to serve a

3 The facts notice under section 21 in June Accordingly the landlord was not entitled to possession, and the appeal should be allowed. 7. I need to say almost nothing about the facts beyond what I have set out above in introducing the appeal. The terms of the original tenancy agreement included the following relevant obligations of the tenant: to pay on the signing of this agreement the sum of held by the landlord as security against any claim by the landlord for any dilapidations or damage to the premises [etc. the details do not matter] the deposit cannot be used as the last month s rent and the tenant hereby signing the tenancy agreement hereby acknowledge this 8. No new tenancy agreement was entered into on the expiry of the fixed term, and no change was made to the rent then or thereafter. The deposit which had been paid in January 2007 continued to be held by the landlord without any reference being made to it at that time by either landlord or tenant. The legislation: assured shorthold tenancies 9. Under the Housing Act 1988 an assured tenancy which is for a fixed term may come to an end by an order of the court or by surrender by the tenant, or it may be replaced by a fresh contractual term. Otherwise, when it expires, the tenant shall be entitled to remain in possession of the dwelling-house let under that tenancy and his right to possession shall depend upon a periodic tenancy arising by virtue of this section : section 5(2). Section 5(3) provides that the periodic tenancy (a) takes effect in possession at the end of the fixed term tenancy, (b) is deemed to have been granted by the person who at the end of the fixed term was the landlord, to the person who was then the tenant, under the fixed term tenancy, (c) is of the same premises, and (d) is for the periods for which rent was last payable under the fixed term tenancy, and that: the other terms are the same as those of the fixed term tenancy immediately before it came to an end, except that any term which makes provision for determination by the landlord or the tenant shall not have effect while the tenancy remains an assured tenancy : section 5(3)(e). 10. There is provision for changing the terms but since nothing was done in that respect in the present case it is unnecessary to refer to this. 11. In the case of an assured shorthold tenancy, the landlord has the right to apply for possession of the premises, once any fixed term has expired, subject only to giving not less than two months notice under section 21. The court has to be satisfied that the notice has been duly given and that any fixed term tenancy has come to an end, but otherwise there is no discretion in the court to refuse to make a possession order. 12. That is in contrast to section 8, under which the landlord can also give notice of proceedings for possession. Under sections 7 and 8 the court has to be satisfied that

4 one of a number of grounds for making a possession order exists, that ground having been specified in the notice. Depending on which ground is relied on, the court may have to be satisfied that it is reasonable to make the order. 13. The landlord under an assured shorthold tenancy will rely on a notice under section 21 rather than on proceeding under section 8 unless there is some very good reason to do the latter. For that reason, one of the sanctions to ensure compliance with the law as regards protecting tenants deposits is a fetter on the use of section 21. The legislation: protection of tenants deposits 14. Section 212 of the Housing Act 2004 obliges the Secretary of State (who is the appropriate national authority for England) to provide the infrastructure, so to speak, by making arrangements for securing that one or more tenancy deposit schemes are available for the purpose of safeguarding tenancy deposits paid in connection with shorthold tenancies. Section 212(2) shows that the purpose of such a scheme is both that of safeguarding tenancy deposits paid in connection with shorthold tenancies and also that of facilitating the resolution of disputes arising in connection with such deposits. Schemes were to be either custodial or insurance schemes. A tenancy deposit means any money intended to be held (by the landlord or otherwise) as security for the performance of any obligations of the tenant or the discharge of any liability of his arising under or in connection with the tenancy: section 212(8). 15. As the legislation was originally enacted, section 213, headed Requirements relating to tenancy deposits, was as follows: (1) Any tenancy deposit paid to a person in connection with a shorthold tenancy must, as from the time when it is received, be dealt with in accordance with an authorised scheme. (2) No person may require the payment of a tenancy deposit in connection with a shorthold tenancy which is not to be subject to the requirement in subsection (1). (3) Where a landlord receives a tenancy deposit in connection with a shorthold tenancy, the initial requirements of an authorised scheme must be complied with by the landlord in relation to the deposit within the period of 14 days beginning with the date on which it is received. (4) For the purposes of this section the initial requirements of an authorised scheme are such requirements imposed by the scheme as fall to be complied with by a landlord on receiving such a tenancy deposit. (5) A landlord who has received such a tenancy deposit must give the tenant and any relevant person such information relating to (a) the authorised scheme applying to the deposit, (b) compliance by the landlord with the initial requirements of the scheme in relation to the deposit, and

5 (c) the operation of provisions of this Chapter in relation to the deposit, as may be prescribed. (6) The information required by subsection (5) must be given to the tenant and any relevant person (a) in the prescribed form or in a form substantially to the same effect, and (b) within the period of 14 days beginning with the date on which the deposit is received by the landlord. (7) No person may, in connection with a shorthold tenancy, require a deposit which consists of property other than money. (8) In subsection (7) deposit means a transfer of property intended to be held (by the landlord or otherwise) as security for (a) (b) the performance of any obligations of the tenant, or the discharge of any liability of his, arising under or in connection with the tenancy. (9) The provisions of this section apply despite any agreement to the contrary. (10) In this section prescribed means prescribed by an order made by the appropriate national authority; property means moveable property; relevant person means any person who, in accordance with arrangements made with the tenant, paid the deposit on behalf of the tenant. 16. This section was amended by the Localism Act 2011 with effect from 6 April 2012 so as to substitute a period of 30 days for the 14 days specified in sub-sections (3) and (6)(b). 17. Section 214 is headed Proceedings relating to tenancy deposits. In its original form it was as follows: (1) Where a tenancy deposit has been paid in connection with a shorthold tenancy, the tenant or any relevant person (as defined by section 213(10)) may make an application to a county court on the grounds

6 (a) that the initial requirements of an authorised scheme (see section 213(4)) have not, or section 213(6)(a) has not, been complied with in relation to the deposit, or (b) that he has been notified by the landlord that a particular authorised scheme applies to the deposit but has been unable to obtain confirmation from the scheme administrator that the deposit is being held in accordance with the scheme. (2) Subsections (3) and (4) apply if on such an application the court (a) is satisfied that those requirements have not, or section 213(6) has not, been complied with in relation to the deposit, or (b) is not satisfied that the deposit is being held in accordance with an authorised scheme, as the case may be. (3) The court must, as it thinks fit, either (a) order the person who appears to the court to be holding the deposit to repay it to the applicant, or (b) order that person to pay the deposit into the designated account held by the scheme administrator under an authorised custodial scheme, within the period of 14 days beginning with the date of the making of the order. (4) The court must also order the landlord to pay to the applicant a sum of money equal to three times the amount of the deposit within the period of 14 days beginning with the date of the making of the order. (5) Where any deposit given in connection with a shorthold tenancy could not be lawfully required as a result of section 213(7), the property in question is recoverable from the person holding it by the person by whom it was given as a deposit. (6) In subsection (5) deposit has the meaning given by section 213(8). 18. This was amended with effect from 2012 so as to introduce a new paragraph (a) of sub-section (1) as follows: that section 213(3) or (6) has not been complied with in relation to the deposit, and correspondingly in sub-section (2)(a). It also introduced a new sub-section (1A):

7 (1A) Subsection (1) also applies in a case where the tenancy has ended, and in such a case the reference in subsection (1) to the tenant is to a person who was a tenant under the tenancy. 19. It made consequential provision for the case where the tenancy had come to an end before the proceedings were brought. It also amended sub-section (4) so that the court must still require the landlord to pay a sum of money, but it is to be not less than the amount of the deposit and not more than three times that amount. These amendments modified the effect of the decision of the Court of Appeal in Vision Enterprises Ltd v Tiensia [2010] EWCA Civ 1224, [2012] 1 W.L.R. 94, which held that where the landlord had failed to comply with section 213(4) within the stipulated 14 days, but had complied before the hearing of the claim, the sanction provided for by section 214(4) could not be imposed. They also overcame the effect of the decision in Gladehurst Properties Ltd v Hashemi [2011] EWCA Civ 604, [2011] HLR 36, that proceedings could not be brought under section 214 once the tenancy had come to an end. They modified the sanction in section 214(4) by giving the court power to decide, within the specified range, how much was to be paid by the landlord. 20. The issue on this appeal turns directly on section 215, which is headed Sanctions for non-compliance. As enacted, the section was as follows: (1) If a tenancy deposit has been paid in connection with a shorthold tenancy, no section 21 notice may be given in relation to the tenancy at a time when (a) the deposit is not being held in accordance with an authorised scheme, or (b) the initial requirements of such a scheme (see section 213(4)) have not been complied with in relation to the deposit. (2) If section 213(6) is not complied with in relation to a deposit given in connection with a shorthold tenancy, no section 21 notice may be given in relation to the tenancy until such time as section 213(6)(a) is complied with. (3) If any deposit given in connection with a shorthold tenancy could not be lawfully required as a result of section 213(7), no section 21 notice may be given in relation to the tenancy until such time as the property in question is returned to the person by whom it was given as a deposit. (4) In subsection (3) deposit has the meaning given by section 213(8). (5) In this section a section 21 notice means a notice under section 21(1)(b) or (4)(a) of the Housing Act 1988 (recovery of possession on termination of shorthold tenancy). 21. The amendments in 2012 changed paragraph (b) of sub-section (1) so as to say section 213(3) has not been complied with in relation to the deposit. Other minor

8 amendments were made which do not affect the point with which this appeal is concerned. The issues on the appeal 22. The Deputy District Judge decided the case in favour of the tenant on a ground which is no longer relied on. Judge Winstanley held in favour of the landlord principally on the basis that the deposit had been paid and received before the legislation came into force and there was nothing in the legislation which indicated that it was to apply to a deposit which had already been paid before the commencement date. 23. Before us, two provisions became the subject of close attention. On Mr Westgate s submissions, section 213 applied so as to oblige the respondent landlord to deal with the deposit in accordance with an authorised scheme within 14 days of 8 January 2008, when the appellant became tenant of the respondent under a new statutory periodic assured shorthold tenancy, the deposit being treated as paid and received in respect of that periodic tenancy when it came into being. Secondly, he submitted that, whether or not that was so, section 215(1) applied in any event in 2011 when the respondent served its section 21 notice, so as to preclude the respondent from doing so. 24. The amendments to the 2004 Act made by the Localism Act 2011 were not then in force, so that nothing turns, for these purposes, on the amended text. On the other hand, if the appellant is right, for either reason, and the section 21 notice is not valid, then the tenancy has not yet been brought to an end, and the amended provisions will apply if the respondent wishes to take further steps to obtain possession. Does section 213 apply in these circumstances? 25. Mr Bhose s contention, consistent with the position adopted by Judge Winstanley, was that the deposit was paid and received in January 2007, before the relevant provisions came into force, and that therefore nothing in section 213 could bite on the deposit, since it refers consistently to the time, or the date, when it is received : see sub-sections (1), (3) and (6)(b), and the phrase on receiving such a tenancy deposit in sub-section (4). 26. As regards the original fixed term tenancy that is no doubt the case. It is not contended that the commencement of the relevant provisions brought section 213 into play at once as regards deposits already paid and received under tenancies already in existence. 27. However, Mr Westgate argued that, when the new statutory periodic tenancy came into being in January 2008, the deposit had to be regarded as being then paid and received in respect of that new tenancy. It is clear from the 1988 Act that what happens at the end of the fixed period tenancy is the creation of a new and distinct statutory tenancy, rather than, for example, the continuation of the tenant s previous status. I do not see that there can be any doubt as to that. It was so held in relation to a comparable provision in the 1988 Act in N & D (London) Ltd v Gadson (1991) 24 HLR 64.

9 28. That being so, the new tenancy contained an equivalent provision as to a deposit, in replacement for the provision under the express tenancy. In theory the landlord could have exercised its right to use the original deposit to obtain compensation for any breach of the tenancy agreement as regards the condition of the property during the period of the fixed term tenancy, and could have required the deposit to be topped up as necessary. In fact it did not make any such requirement. But the legal position after 8 January 2008 must have been that the deposit was held by the landlord as security for the performance of the tenant s obligations, or for the discharge of any liability of his, arising under or in connection with the new statutory periodic tenancy, not (or not only) in respect of such obligations or liabilities arising under the original fixed term tenancy. How had that come about? It must have been on the basis that the tenant s right to be credited with the deposit at the end of the fixed period tenancy, as well as his obligation to pay, and the landlord s right to receive, an equivalent deposit under the new statutory periodic tenancy, were treated as satisfied by the landlord continuing to hold the same sum of money as before on the same basis as before but by reference to the new tenancy. 29. Mr Westgate therefore submitted that, even though no money changed hands and no book entries were made at that stage, nevertheless the landlord had to be treated as having received the amount of the deposit, referable to the new tenancy, on 8 January Otherwise the deposit would only have been held as security for obligations and liabilities under the original fixed period tenancy, which would make no sense, at least for the landlord. If the landlord is, therefore, treated as holding the deposit in relation to the new tenancy, it must be treated as having received it for that purpose. That receipt must have occurred on or about 8 January If that were so, he argued, the respondent then came under the obligation to comply with section 213(3), (4) and (5) within 14 days thereafter, which it undoubtedly had not done. 30. He pointed to the definition of money, in section 212(8), as meaning money in the form of cash or otherwise. The width of that definition is particularly important in relation to section 213(7), prohibiting a demand for a deposit which consists of property other than money. However it shows, if there were any doubt, that a payment by cheque or by direct bank transfer could amount to the payment, and therefore the receipt by the landlord, of a deposit. He submitted that, as the provisions are intended for the protection of tenants in respect of their deposits, they should be construed broadly and purposively, so as to assure tenants of the statutory protection in all relevant cases. 31. As Mr Chataway had before Judge Winstanley, Mr Westgate relied on authority to show that statutory provisions about payment have been held to cover situations other than a payment by cash, cheque or the like. In White v Elmdene Estates Ltd [1960] 1 QB 1, [1960] AC 528, the legislation prohibited the requirement of payment of any premium on the grant, renewal or continuance of any tenancy. Mr and Mrs White owned and lived in a house, but it was subject to a mortgage which was in arrears, and they decided that they had to sell, repay the mortgage and then rent a flat. They found a suitable flat, but the estate agents acting on the letting required them to sell their house through them, and to sell it for 500 less than the fair market value, which they agreed to do, and did. One of the several issues in the case was whether on these facts there was a payment of any premium, which was defined as including any fine or other like sum and any other pecuniary consideration in addition to rent. The Court

10 of Appeal had no difficulty in holding that the imposition on Mr and Mrs White of the obligation to sell the house at 500 less than the proper price was the requirement of a premium. Lord Evershed MR then said, at page 16 of the report: If I am right it must follow that the exaction of such a deduction must amount to a payment ; and I find, indeed, no difficulty in so concluding: for the word payment in itself is one which, in an appropriate context, may cover many ways of discharging obligations. 32. Ormerod LJ agreed, as did Willmer LJ, who said this, at page 28 of the report: Again, in my judgment, there can be no doubt that the defendants required a payment to be made. It is true that no actual money passed, but I venture to point out that a taxpayer is none the less a taxpayer because income tax which he owes is deducted at source. Similarly, the plaintiff and his wife in this case none the less paid 500 because it was deducted from the purchase price of the house that they had for sale. 33. The House of Lords dismissed the landlord s appeal, without saying anything that either takes away from or adds to the observations of Lord Evershed and Willmer LJ which I have quoted. 34. Later, however, the House of Lords expressly approved Lord Evershed s observations, in Hanoman v Southwark London Borough Council (No 2) [2009] UKHL 29 [2009] 1 W.L.R. 1367, where the question was whether a section of the Housing Act 1985 (about the right to buy) which referred to payments of rent made by the tenant could include amounts by way of housing benefit which were credited to the tenant s rent account, but were not, and could not be, paid to the tenant, nor by him to the landlord. Lord Scott of Foscote said, at paragraph 24, that such payments could be described as a payment of the rent for the purposes of the relevant provision. He said the word payment varies with the context in which it is used and he cited the last part of Lord Evershed s observation which I have quoted above. The other members of the House agreed with him. 35. Mr Bhose s submission was that section 213 only applies when the deposit is physically received after 6 April By physical receipt he meant payment by cash, cheque, bank transfer or in some other comparable way, such as occurred in the present case in January He supported this argument by a submission that, if the appellant s contention were correct, many private landlords would have been caught, and caught unawares, by a need to comply with section 213 on the expiry, after the commencement date, of a fixed term assured shorthold tenancy created before that date, if the tenant remains in possession, no new tenancy agreement being entered into, and the deposit, which had previously been paid and was still held, simply staying where it was with nothing said about it. He pointed to the absence of any transitional provision in the Act or in the commencement order. If so, he argued, the landlord would have to go to the otherwise unnecessary and pointless trouble and expense of arranging for the deposit to be held in accordance with an authorised scheme, simply in order to be able to recover possession of the premises by serving a section 21 notice.

11 36. I am not persuaded by that argument. The 2004 Act has to be construed in the light of the provisions of the 1988 Act as regards assured shorthold tenancies, including section 5. Once the new statutory periodic tenancy had come into being after the commencement date, a tenant s deposit being already held, it would be necessary to consider whether and if so how the 2004 Act applied. As I have said already, it must have been the landlord s position, by then, that it held the sum of as a deposit as security for the performance of the tenant s obligations, or for the discharge of any liability of the tenant, arising under or in connection with the new tenancy. That could only be the correct legal position if that sum of money was to be treated as having been paid pursuant to the tenant s obligation under the periodic tenancy to provide a deposit. That obligation only arose on the expiry of the fixed term tenancy, so the payment at the beginning of that fixed term cannot have given rise to the position which obtained once the fixed term had expired. Something must have happened in January 2008 which led to the result that the deposit was held in relation to the new tenancy. That something could have been either an actual (or, as Mr Bhose put it, physical) payment (but none took place in this instance) or something which amounted to payment. If there was an actual payment or something treated as a payment there must also have been a corresponding receipt. 37. If the parties had been aware of the true nature of the legal consequences in January 2008 of the expiry of the express fixed term tenancy without the tenant either giving up possession or entering into a new express tenancy agreement, they might have had a conversation or other exchange about the deposit, in which they agreed that the landlord should continue to hold the deposit, and that it should for the future be treated as the deposit under the new tenancy, instead of under the former fixed term tenancy. That would have been the sensible alternative to the landlord paying the deposit back to the tenant (subject to any claim for want of repair or otherwise which he wanted to assert at that time) and the tenant paying the landlord the equivalent sum under the new tenancy. 38. In my judgment, although there is no evidence that the parties said or did anything of that kind, and it is likely that they were not aware of the nature or incidents of the legal process that took place when the fixed term tenancy came to an end, nevertheless the position as between them should be treated in the same way as if they had had such a discussion. The tenant should be treated as having paid the amount of the deposit to the landlord in respect of the new tenancy, by way of set-off against the landlord s obligation to account to the tenant for the deposit in respect of the previous tenancy, given that the landlord did not seek payment out of the prior deposit for the consequences of any prior breach of the tenancy agreement. 39. It follows that, on my analysis, the tenant did pay, and the landlord did receive, the sum of by way of a deposit in respect of the new periodic tenancy in January 2008, and so the obligations under section 213 applied to the deposit so received. As is common ground, they were not performed. Section 215(1) therefore applied so that the landlord could not validly give notice under section 21 of the 1988 Act. The notice purportedly given on 22 June 2011 was thus ineffective and the grounds for possession were not made out. 40. For these reasons, Mr Bhose is right to point out the consequence that, once the fixed term tenancy had expired, the tenant remaining in possession, the landlord had to make arrangements for the deposit to be held in accordance with an authorised

12 scheme if he wished to be in a position to serve a section 21 notice. That is the policy of the 2004 Act and I do not find persuasive Mr Bhose s argument that the requirement should not be imposed in these circumstances, or that it should be seen as unnecessary or pointless. I am willing to accept that the need to comply may not have been foreseen. Unfortunately, several points under this legislation turned out not to be as may have been expected or intended. The imposition of this requirement in these circumstances does not seem to me in any way anomalous, futile or pointless. To the contrary, it is entirely consistent with the policy and aim of the relevant provisions. 41. The tenant has hitherto confined his position to resisting the claim for possession, and has not sought repayment of the deposit nor payment of a sum under section 214(4). It is therefore sufficient to say that the possession order ought not to have been made, and the appeal should be allowed. 42. Under the original version of section 215, as construed in Vision Enterprises v Tiensia, it was open to the landlord to comply with the requirement to have the deposit held in accordance with an authorised scheme, even though this was not done within the 14 days then stipulated. That seems not to be the case now, given the amendment to section 215(1)(b) made in I note that, as regards failure to provide the necessary information, under section 213(6), the sanction preventing service of a section 21 notice applies until the information is given, even if that is done late: see section 215(2) and its words: until such time as section 213(6)(a) is complied with. The time stipulation is in section 213(6)(b), so in that case the distinction is clearly deliberate: the landlord can retrieve the position, as regards that failure to comply, by complying late. The same does not appear to be the case in respect of failure to protect the deposit by an authorised scheme at all. Therefore it may be (I do not decide that it is so) that the only way in which the landlord can now escape from the provisions of section 215(1) is by returning the deposit to the tenant. Conclusion 43. The point which I have discussed concerning section 213 was the only one taken in the grounds of appeal for which permission to appeal was granted. Towards the end of a further skeleton argument lodged thereafter by Mr Westgate and Mr Chataway another point was taken, namely that even if the provisions of section 213 had not applied to the deposit as a result of the creation of the statutory periodic tenancy in 2008, nevertheless the terms of section 215(1) were such that it applies so as to prevent a section 21 notice from being served whenever a deposit is held which is not held in accordance with an authorised scheme. 44. I can see the basis for this argument on the literal words of the section. If it is right, it would have had extensive consequences when the legislation first came into force, since it would have required any deposit to be put into an authorised scheme before the landlord could serve a section 21 notice after the commencement date, even if there would have been no other obligation to do so under section 213. It is not clear how significant would be the effect of this point now, six years after the provisions first came into force.

13 45. Interesting as the point is, it is not necessary to decide it for the purposes of determining this appeal. For that reason, I prefer not to deal with it but to leave it to be decided in a case in which it matters, if one such were to arise. 46. As it is, therefore, I would hold that the landlord did receive a deposit from the tenant of on 8 January 2008, and it therefore came under the obligations set out in section 213 as it then stood. Not having complied with those obligations, it was not entitled to serve a notice under section 21 in June It was therefore not entitled to obtain possession of the premises. I would allow the tenant s appeal on that basis. Lewison LJ 47. I agree. Gloster LJ 48. I also agree.

Rent in advance not a deposit: Court of Appeal latest

Rent in advance not a deposit: Court of Appeal latest Rent in advance not a deposit: Court of Appeal latest The Court of Appeal in their latest judgement has confirmed that rent paid in advance is not a deposit. This was the case of Johnson vs Old which was

More information

Before : MR JUSTICE FANCOURT Between :

Before : MR JUSTICE FANCOURT Between : Neutral Citation Number: [2018] EWHC 48 (Ch) Case No: CH-2017-000105 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BUSINESS AND PROPERY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES CHANCERY APPEALS (ChD) ON APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT

More information

Before : LORD JUSTICE DAVID RICHARDS And LORD JUSTICE IRWIN Between :

Before : LORD JUSTICE DAVID RICHARDS And LORD JUSTICE IRWIN Between : Neutral Citation Number: [2017] EWCA Civ 111 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CHANCERY DIVISION MANCHESTER DISTRICT REGISTRY HIS HONOUR JUDGE HODGE QC M14C358

More information

Before : MR JUSTICE MORGAN Between : - and - THE ROYAL LONDON MUTUAL INSURANCE SOCIETY LIMITED

Before : MR JUSTICE MORGAN Between : - and - THE ROYAL LONDON MUTUAL INSURANCE SOCIETY LIMITED Neutral Citation Number: [2016] EWHC 319 (Ch) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CHANCERY DIVISION Case No: CH/2015/0377 Royal Courts of Justice Rolls Building, Fetter Lane, London, EC4A1NLL Before : MR JUSTICE

More information

VALUATION TRIBUNAL FOR ENGLAND

VALUATION TRIBUNAL FOR ENGLAND VALUATION TRIBUNAL FOR ENGLAND Council Tax Liability Appeal; Hierarchy of Liability; definition of owner; material interest; leasehold interest for 6 months or more; Macattram v London Borough of Camden

More information

Before : MRS JUSTICE PATTERSON Between :

Before : MRS JUSTICE PATTERSON Between : Neutral Citation Number: [2013] EWHC 3483 (Admin) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION ADMINISTRATIVE COURT Case No: CO/8618/2013 Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL Date: 06/12/2013

More information

Before :

Before : Neutral Citation Number: [2017] EWCA Civ 1934 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM CANTERBURY COUNTY COURT (Sitting at Brighton County Court) HIS HONOUR JUDGE SIMPKISS Claim No 3 CT 00725

More information

EASTEND HOMES LIMITED. - and - (1) AFTAJAN BIBI (2) MAHANARA BEGUM JUDGMENT. Dates: 24 August 2017

EASTEND HOMES LIMITED. - and - (1) AFTAJAN BIBI (2) MAHANARA BEGUM JUDGMENT. Dates: 24 August 2017 Claim No. B00EC907 In the County Court at Central London On Appeal from District Judge Sterlini Sitting at Clerkenwell & Shoreditch His Honour Judge Parfitt EASTEND HOMES LIMITED Appellant - and - (1)

More information

JUDGMENT. Tael One Partners Limited (Appellant) v Morgan Stanley & Co International PLC (Respondent)

JUDGMENT. Tael One Partners Limited (Appellant) v Morgan Stanley & Co International PLC (Respondent) Hilary Term [2015] UKSC 12 On appeal from: [2013] EWCA Civ 473 JUDGMENT Tael One Partners Limited (Appellant) v Morgan Stanley & Co International PLC (Respondent) before Lord Neuberger, President Lord

More information

Before : LORD JUSTICE GOLDRING LORD JUSTICE AIKENS and LORD JUSTICE McCOMBE Between :

Before : LORD JUSTICE GOLDRING LORD JUSTICE AIKENS and LORD JUSTICE McCOMBE Between : Neutral Citation Number: [2013] EWCA Civ 585 Case No: C1/2012/1950 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM QUEEN S BENCH (ADMINISTRATIVE COURT) MR JUSTICE HOLMAN [2012] EWHC 1303 (Admin)

More information

Before: LORD JUSTICE MOSES LADY JUSTICE BLACK and LADY JUSTICE GLOSTER Between:

Before: LORD JUSTICE MOSES LADY JUSTICE BLACK and LADY JUSTICE GLOSTER Between: Neutral Citation Number: [2013] EWCA Civ 1464 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM THE UPPER TRIBUNAL (Tax and Chancery Chamber) The Hon. Mr Justice Briggs [2012] UKUT 242 (TCC) Before:

More information

JUDGMENT. Cotter (Respondent) v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs (Appellant)

JUDGMENT. Cotter (Respondent) v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs (Appellant) Michaelmas Term [2013] UKSC 69 On appeal from: [2012] EWCA Civ 81 JUDGMENT Cotter (Respondent) v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs (Appellant) before Lord Neuberger, President Lord Sumption

More information

Before: THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE LEWIS Between:

Before: THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE LEWIS Between: Neutral Citation Number: [2018] EWHC 1966 (Admin) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION ADMINISTRATIVE COURT Case No: CO/2656/2017 Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL Date: 27/07/2018

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL. ARCELORMITTAL POINT LISAS LIMITED (formerly CARIBBEAN ISPAT LIMITED) Appellant AND

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL. ARCELORMITTAL POINT LISAS LIMITED (formerly CARIBBEAN ISPAT LIMITED) Appellant AND TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE COURT OF APPEAL Civil Appeal No: 211 of 2009 BETWEEN ARCELORMITTAL POINT LISAS LIMITED (formerly CARIBBEAN ISPAT LIMITED) Appellant AND STEEL WORKERS UNION OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO

More information

ALBON ENGINEERING AND MANUFACTURING LIMITED. - and - Sitting in public at the Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London WC2A 2LL on 16 June 2017

ALBON ENGINEERING AND MANUFACTURING LIMITED. - and - Sitting in public at the Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London WC2A 2LL on 16 June 2017 [17] UKFTT 60 (TC) TC06002 Appeal number:tc/14/01804 PROCEDURE costs complex case whether appellant opted out of liability for costs within 28 days of receiving notice of allocation as a complex case date

More information

Before: LORD JUSTICE SULLIVAN and - THE UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER

Before: LORD JUSTICE SULLIVAN and - THE UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER Case No: A2/2010/2941 Neutral Citation Number: [2011] EWCA Civ 592 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM THE EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL Before: LORD JUSTICE SULLIVAN Royal Courts of Justice

More information

Rawofi (age assessment standard of proof) [2012] UKUT 00197(IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE WARR. Between SAIFULLAH RAWOFI.

Rawofi (age assessment standard of proof) [2012] UKUT 00197(IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE WARR. Between SAIFULLAH RAWOFI. Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Rawofi (age assessment standard of proof) [2012] UKUT 00197(IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Before LORD JUSTICE McFARLANE UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE WARR Between Given

More information

JUDGMENT. Nelson and others (Appellants) v First Caribbean International Bank (Barbados) Limited (Respondent)

JUDGMENT. Nelson and others (Appellants) v First Caribbean International Bank (Barbados) Limited (Respondent) [2014] UKPC 30 Privy Council Appeal No 0043 of 2013 JUDGMENT Nelson and others (Appellants) v First Caribbean International Bank (Barbados) Limited (Respondent) From the Court of Appeal of St Lucia before

More information

Before : LORD JUSTICE LONGMORE LORD JUSTICE PATTEN and MR JUSTICE ROTH Between :

Before : LORD JUSTICE LONGMORE LORD JUSTICE PATTEN and MR JUSTICE ROTH Between : Neutral Citation Number: [2015] EWCA Civ 717 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE, CHANCERY DIVISION, COMPANIES COURT MR RICHARD SHELDON QC (SITTING AS A DEPUTY

More information

JUDGMENT. Maharaj and another (Appellants) v Motor One Insurance Company Limited (Respondent) (Trinidad and Tobago)

JUDGMENT. Maharaj and another (Appellants) v Motor One Insurance Company Limited (Respondent) (Trinidad and Tobago) Easter Term [2018] UKPC 8 Privy Council Appeal No 0101 of 2016 JUDGMENT Maharaj and another (Appellants) v Motor One Insurance Company Limited (Respondent) (Trinidad and Tobago) From the Court of Appeal

More information

Number 21 of Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2014

Number 21 of Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2014 Number 21 of 14 Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 14 Number 21 of 14 Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 14 CONTENTS PART 1 PRELIMINARY AND GENERAL Section 1. Short title, collective citation

More information

Reports of Cases. JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) 18 July 2013 *

Reports of Cases. JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) 18 July 2013 * Reports of Cases JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) 18 July 2013 * (Transfer of undertakings Directive 2001/23/EC Safeguarding of employees rights Collective agreement applicable to the transferor and

More information

JUDGMENT. claimed against the defendant money due and owing under two loan accounts. Under

JUDGMENT. claimed against the defendant money due and owing under two loan accounts. Under THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE HCA No S-496 of 2005/ CV 2007-01692 BETWEEN REPUBLIC BANK LIMITED CLAIMANT AND SELWYN PETERS DEFENDANT BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE

More information

A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO ENFORCING THE MORTGAGEE S SECURITY PART 55 & THE PRE-ACTION PROTOCOL. Jacqueline Lean. Landmark Chambers

A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO ENFORCING THE MORTGAGEE S SECURITY PART 55 & THE PRE-ACTION PROTOCOL. Jacqueline Lean. Landmark Chambers A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO ENFORCING THE MORTGAGEE S SECURITY PART 55 & THE PRE-ACTION PROTOCOL Jacqueline Lean Landmark Chambers Introduction 1. It is hardly news that the number of home possessions on grounds

More information

LANDLORDS BEWARE - GAP IN THE HOUSING ACT

LANDLORDS BEWARE - GAP IN THE HOUSING ACT LANDLORDS BEWARE - GAP IN THE HOUSING ACT Michael Grant - 2018 Introduction I was recently instructed to advise a landlord in connection with a possession claim, on the merits of a tenant s defence. Upon

More information

Ombudsman s Determination

Ombudsman s Determination Ombudsman s Determination Applicant Mr A Scheme The New Firefighters Pension Scheme (England) (the 2006 Scheme) Respondent Warwickshire Fire and Rescue Authority (the Authority) Complaint summary 1. Mr

More information

B E F O R E: LORD JUSTICE SEDLEY LORD JUSTICE LATHAM LORD JUSTICE WALL JOVAN SHKEMBI. -v-

B E F O R E: LORD JUSTICE SEDLEY LORD JUSTICE LATHAM LORD JUSTICE WALL JOVAN SHKEMBI. -v- Neutral Citation Number: [2005] EWCA Civ 1592 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT C5/2005/0960 Royal Courts of Justice Strand London,

More information

JUDGMENT. Lamusse Sek Sum & Co v Late Bai Rehmatbai Waqf

JUDGMENT. Lamusse Sek Sum & Co v Late Bai Rehmatbai Waqf [2012] UKPC 14 Privy Council Appeal No 0066 of 2011 JUDGMENT Lamusse Sek Sum & Co v Late Bai Rehmatbai Waqf From the Supreme Court of Mauritius before Lord Hope Lord Brown Lord Mance Lord Dyson Lord Sumption

More information

Before: LORD JUSTICE LONGMORE and LORD JUSTICE LLOYD Between: The QUEEN on the Application of RS.

Before: LORD JUSTICE LONGMORE and LORD JUSTICE LLOYD Between: The QUEEN on the Application of RS. Case No: C4/2008/3131 Neutral Citation Number: [2009] EWCA Civ 688 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT (MR STUART ISAACS) Royal Courts

More information

PROCEDURE Costs of interlocutory proceedings Application for Further and Better Particulars. - and - TRIBUNAL: JUDGE JOHN BROOKS

PROCEDURE Costs of interlocutory proceedings Application for Further and Better Particulars. - and - TRIBUNAL: JUDGE JOHN BROOKS [2017] UKFTT 0509 (TC) TC05962 Appeal numbers: TC/2014/05870 TC/2015/00425 PROCEDURE Costs of interlocutory proceedings Application for Further and Better Particulars FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL TAX CHAMBER AWARD

More information

Before : LADY JUSTICE GLOSTER, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF APPEAL, CIVIL DIVISION LORD JUSTICE ELIAS - and - MR JUSTICE MOYLAN.

Before : LADY JUSTICE GLOSTER, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF APPEAL, CIVIL DIVISION LORD JUSTICE ELIAS - and - MR JUSTICE MOYLAN. Neutral Citation Number: [2017] EWCA Civ 329 Case No: A2/2016/1898/EATRF IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM THE EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL MR JUSTICE LANGSTAFF UKEATPA/0250/1 Royal

More information

IMMIGRATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL

IMMIGRATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL SG (Stateless Nepalese: Refugee Removal Directions) Bhutan [2005] UKIAT 00025 Between: IMMIGRATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL Date of Hearing: 8 November 2004 Determination delivered orally at Hearing Date Determination

More information

Steptoe & so on. The facts of the case. What is the issue? What does it mean to me? What can I take away? 1 November 2015

Steptoe & so on. The facts of the case. What is the issue? What does it mean to me? What can I take away? 1 November 2015 Steptoe & so on 1 November 2015 Keith Gordon reviews the First-tier s decision in Barrett v HMRC [2015] UKFTT 0329 (TC) What is the issue? Mr Barrett, a jobbing builder, took on casual labour on a subcontract

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SEYCHELLES. TIC TAC SHOP (Rep. by Frederick Payet) SRINIVAS COMPLEX (Rep. by M. Srinivasan Chetty) JUDGMENT

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SEYCHELLES. TIC TAC SHOP (Rep. by Frederick Payet) SRINIVAS COMPLEX (Rep. by M. Srinivasan Chetty) JUDGMENT 1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SEYCHELLES TIC TAC SHOP (Rep. by Frederick Payet) Vs SRINIVAS COMPLEX (Rep. by M. Srinivasan Chetty) Civil Appeal No: 20 of 2010 ===================================================================

More information

Before: MR JUSTICE MORGAN Between: - and -

Before: MR JUSTICE MORGAN Between: - and - Neutral Citation Number: [2017] EWHC 2691 (Ch) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CHANCERY DIVISION Case No: CH-2017-000070 Royal Courts of Justice Rolls Building, Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL Before: MR JUSTICE

More information

Before: LORD JUSTICE JACKSON LORD JUSTICE LEWISON and LORD JUSTICE CHRISTOPHER CLARKE Between :

Before: LORD JUSTICE JACKSON LORD JUSTICE LEWISON and LORD JUSTICE CHRISTOPHER CLARKE Between : Neutral Citation Number: [2014] EWCA Civ 877 Case No: B5/2013/2694 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM THE MAYOR'S & CITY OF LONDON COUNTY COURT HIS HONOUR JUDGE BIRTLES 3CL40018l Royal

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV ORAL JUDGMENT OF VENNING J

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV ORAL JUDGMENT OF VENNING J IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV 2005-404-006984 BETWEEN AND STELLAR PROJECTS LIMITED Appellant NICK GJAJA PLUMBING LIIMITED Respondent Hearing: 10 April 2006 Appearances: Mr J C

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL KENNETH HARRIS. and SARAH GERALD

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL KENNETH HARRIS. and SARAH GERALD MONTSERRAT CIVIL APPEAL NO.3 OF 2003 BETWEEN: IN THE COURT OF APPEAL KENNETH HARRIS and SARAH GERALD Before: The Hon. Mr. Brian Alleyne, SC The Hon. Mr. Michael Gordon, QC The Hon Madam Suzie d Auvergne

More information

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Promulgated On 6 January 2015 On 15 January Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE I A LEWIS. Between

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Promulgated On 6 January 2015 On 15 January Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE I A LEWIS. Between IAC-FH-NL-V1 Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Determination Promulgated On 6 January 2015 On 15 January 2015 Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE

More information

VN (Chicago Convention s 86(4)) Iran [2010] UKUT 303 (IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before

VN (Chicago Convention s 86(4)) Iran [2010] UKUT 303 (IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) VN (Chicago Convention s 86(4)) Iran [2010] UKUT 303 (IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House On 29 June 2010 Before Mr C M G Ockelton, Vice President

More information

Ontario Ltd. (c.o.b. Castle Auto Collision & Mechanical Service) v. Certas Insurance, [2016] O.J. No. 264

Ontario Ltd. (c.o.b. Castle Auto Collision & Mechanical Service) v. Certas Insurance, [2016] O.J. No. 264 1218897 Ontario Ltd. (c.o.b. Castle Auto Collision & Mechanical Service) v. Certas Insurance, [2016] O.J. No. Ontario Judgments [2016] O.J. No. 2016 ONSC 354 Ontario Superior Court of Justice Divisional

More information

JUDGMENT. Meadows and others (Appellants) v The Attorney General and another (Respondents) (Jamaica)

JUDGMENT. Meadows and others (Appellants) v The Attorney General and another (Respondents) (Jamaica) Michaelmas Term [2017] UKPC 29 Privy Council Appeal No 0036 of 2016 JUDGMENT Meadows and others (Appellants) v The Attorney General and another (Respondents) (Jamaica) From the Court of Appeal of Jamaica

More information

Before: HIS HONOUR JUDGE BIDDER QC Sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge Between: - and -

Before: HIS HONOUR JUDGE BIDDER QC Sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge Between: - and - Neutral Citation Number: [2011] EWHC 2943 (Admin) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION ADMINISTRATIVE COURT Case No: CO/7149/2010 Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL Date: 10/11/2011

More information

Jaff (s.120 notice; statement of additional grounds ) [2012] UKUT 00396(IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE GRUBB.

Jaff (s.120 notice; statement of additional grounds ) [2012] UKUT 00396(IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE GRUBB. Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Jaff (s.120 notice; statement of additional grounds ) [2012] UKUT 00396(IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House On 21 August 2012 Determination Promulgated

More information

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. On 11 November 2015 On 21 December Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE CHAPMAN. Between

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. On 11 November 2015 On 21 December Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE CHAPMAN. Between Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal number: IA/40016/2014 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision Promulgated On 11 November 2015 On 21 December 2015 Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL

More information

Table of Contents Section Page

Table of Contents Section Page Arbitration Regulations 2015 Table of Contents Section Page Part 1 : General... 1 1. Title... 1 2. Legislative authority... 1 3. Application of the Regulations... 1 4. Date of enactment... 1 5. Date of

More information

Section 20B - What, why and How? Mike Edmunds Camden Council

Section 20B - What, why and How? Mike Edmunds Camden Council Section 20B - What, why and How? Mike Edmunds Camden Council Section 20B of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 What is it? 20B - Limitation of service charges: time limit on making demands. Commonly called

More information

TC04296 [2015] UKFTT 0091 (TC) Appeal number: TC/2014/01373

TC04296 [2015] UKFTT 0091 (TC) Appeal number: TC/2014/01373 [] UKFTT 0091 (TC) TC04296 Appeal number: TC/14/01373 VAT input tax supply of services in relation to the raising of equity finance by the appellant Airtours Holidays Transport Limited v Commissioner for

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN. ALAN DICK AND COMPANY LIMITED [Improperly sued as Alan Dick and Company] AND FAST FREIGHT FORWARDERS LIMITED AND

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN. ALAN DICK AND COMPANY LIMITED [Improperly sued as Alan Dick and Company] AND FAST FREIGHT FORWARDERS LIMITED AND REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL No. 214 of 2010 BETWEEN ALAN DICK AND COMPANY LIMITED [Improperly sued as Alan Dick and Company] APPELLANT AND FAST FREIGHT FORWARDERS

More information

Policy Wording Legal Expenses and Rent Protection for Residential Landlords

Policy Wording Legal Expenses and Rent Protection for Residential Landlords Policy Wording Legal Expenses and Rent Protection for Residential Landlords V8.20160101 LEGAL EXPENSES & RENT PROTECTION FOR RESIDENTIAL LANDLORDS INSURANCE POLICY WORDING This insurance covers an Insured

More information

RK (OFM membership of household dependency) India [2010] UKUT 421 (IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before

RK (OFM membership of household dependency) India [2010] UKUT 421 (IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) RK (OFM membership of household dependency) India [2010] UKUT 421 (IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House On 9 November 2010 Determination Promulgated

More information

BRICOM HOLDINGS LIMITED. - v - THE COMMISSIONERS OF INLAND REVENUE

BRICOM HOLDINGS LIMITED. - v - THE COMMISSIONERS OF INLAND REVENUE IN THE COURT OF APPEAL BRICOM HOLDINGS LIMITED - v - THE COMMISSIONERS OF INLAND REVENUE LORD JUSTICE MILLETT: This is an appeal by Bricom Holdings Limited ("the taxpayer") from a decision of the Special

More information

Titan Europe (NHP) v U.S. Bank An analysis of the High Court Ruling

Titan Europe (NHP) v U.S. Bank An analysis of the High Court Ruling April 2014 Titan Europe 2007-1 (NHP) v U.S. Bank An analysis of the High Court Ruling BY MICHELLE DUNCAN & JENNIE DORSAINT On 16 April 2014, Mr. Richard Snowden QC sitting as a Deputy Judge delivered his

More information

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. On 13 June 2013 On 24 June 2013 Prepared: 14 June Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE O CONNOR. Between

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. On 13 June 2013 On 24 June 2013 Prepared: 14 June Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE O CONNOR. Between Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Determination Sent On 13 June 2013 On 24 June 2013 Prepared: 14 June 2013 Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE O CONNOR

More information

Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) PA/03023/2017 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) PA/03023/2017 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) PA/03023/2017 Appeal Number: THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Royal Court Justice Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 3 rd July 2017 On 5 th July 2017 Before

More information

THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HER MAJESTY S REVENUE AND CUSTOMS. -and- Tribunal: JUDGE HOWARD M. NOWLAN

THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HER MAJESTY S REVENUE AND CUSTOMS. -and- Tribunal: JUDGE HOWARD M. NOWLAN FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL TAX Appeal Number: TC/2014/01582 THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HER MAJESTY S REVENUE AND CUSTOMS -and- Applicants C JENKIN AND SON LTD Respondents Tribunal: JUDGE HOWARD M. NOWLAN Sitting at

More information

Before: SIR TERENCE ETHERTON, MR LADY JUSTICE RAFFERTY and LADY JUSTICE SHARP Between:

Before: SIR TERENCE ETHERTON, MR LADY JUSTICE RAFFERTY and LADY JUSTICE SHARP Between: Neutral Citation Number: [2017] EWCA Civ 78 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM THE QUEEN S BENCH DIVISION ADMINISTRATIVE COURT MR JUSTICE WALKER CO/4607/2014 Before: Case No: C1/2015/2746

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE A.D., 2004 (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) APPEAL FROM THE INFERIOR COURT FOR THE BELZE JUDICIAL DISTRICT D E C I S I O N

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE A.D., 2004 (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) APPEAL FROM THE INFERIOR COURT FOR THE BELZE JUDICIAL DISTRICT D E C I S I O N IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE A.D., 2004 (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) APPEAL FROM THE INFERIOR COURT FOR THE BELZE JUDICIAL DISTRICT INFERIOR APPEAL NO. 11 OF 2004 BETWEEN: (ANTHONY WHITE ( ( ( AND ( ( (EDITH

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV CLAVERDON DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED Defendant. P Chambers for Defendant

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV CLAVERDON DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED Defendant. P Chambers for Defendant IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV-2009-404-6292 BETWEEN AND HOUSING NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Plaintiff CLAVERDON DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED Defendant Hearing: 2 February 2010 Counsel: Judgment:

More information

IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND [2012] NZEmpC 34 ARC 73/11. Plaintiff. VINCENT SINGH Defendant

IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND [2012] NZEmpC 34 ARC 73/11. Plaintiff. VINCENT SINGH Defendant IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND [2012] NZEmpC 34 ARC 73/11 IN THE MATTER OF an application for compliance order BETWEEN AND NOEL COVENTRY Plaintiff VINCENT SINGH Defendant Hearing: 23 February 2012 (Heard

More information

Tariq. The effect of S. 12 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Insurance (Third Party Risks) Act Ch. 48:51 The Act is agreed. That term is void as against third

Tariq. The effect of S. 12 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Insurance (Third Party Risks) Act Ch. 48:51 The Act is agreed. That term is void as against third REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO HCA No. CV 2011-00701 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN GULF INSURANCE LIMITED AND Claimant NASEEM ALI AND TARIQ ALI Defendants Before The Hon. Madam Justice C. Gobin

More information

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Promulgated On 3 January 2007 On 23 April Before. Senior Immigration Judge Storey Immigration Judge Dawson. Between.

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Promulgated On 3 January 2007 On 23 April Before. Senior Immigration Judge Storey Immigration Judge Dawson. Between. Asylum and Immigration Tribunal MM (Article 8 family life dependency) Zambia [2007] UKAIT 00040 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Determination Promulgated On 3 January 2007 On 23 April 2007 Before

More information

Ali (s.120 PBS) [2012] UKUT 00368(IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE ALLEN UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE CHALKLEY. Between MANSOOR ALI.

Ali (s.120 PBS) [2012] UKUT 00368(IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE ALLEN UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE CHALKLEY. Between MANSOOR ALI. IAC-FH-GJ-V6 Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Ali (s.120 PBS) [2012] UKUT 00368(IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House On 20 August 2012 Determination Promulgated Before UPPER TRIBUNAL

More information

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE PATTERSON DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE J G MACDONALD. Between. and

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE PATTERSON DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE J G MACDONALD. Between. and Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Determination Promulgated On 4 th February 2015 On 17 th February 2015 Before THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE PATTERSON

More information

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 23 December 2014 On 20 January Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE KING TD

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 23 December 2014 On 20 January Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE KING TD IAC-FH-NL-V1 Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 23 December 2014 On 20 January 2015 Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE

More information

EDITORIAL NOTE: NO SUPPRESSION APPLIED. IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT QUEENSTOWN CIV [2016] NZDC 2055

EDITORIAL NOTE: NO SUPPRESSION APPLIED. IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT QUEENSTOWN CIV [2016] NZDC 2055 EDITORIAL NOTE: NO SUPPRESSION APPLIED. IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT QUEENSTOWN CIV-2014-059-000156 [2016] NZDC 2055 BETWEEN AND JAMES VELASCO BUENAVENTURA Plaintiff ROWENA GONZALES BURGESS Defendant Hearing:

More information

LAWS OF GUYANA CAPITAL GAINS TAX ACT CHAPTER 81:20

LAWS OF GUYANA CAPITAL GAINS TAX ACT CHAPTER 81:20 Capital Gains Tax 1 CAPITAL GAINS TAX ACT CHAPTER 81:20 Act 13 of 1966A Amended by 4 of 1966B 22 of 1967 33 of 1970 11 of 1983 5 of 1987 6 of 1989 6 of 1991 8 of 1992 Current Authorised Pages Pages Authorised

More information

JUDGMENT. In the matter of Digital Satellite Warranty Cover Limited and another (Appellants) v Financial Services Authority (Respondent)

JUDGMENT. In the matter of Digital Satellite Warranty Cover Limited and another (Appellants) v Financial Services Authority (Respondent) Hilary Term [2013] UKSC 7 On appeal from: [2011] EWCA Civ 1413 JUDGMENT In the matter of Digital Satellite Warranty Cover Limited and another (Appellants) v Financial Services Authority (Respondent) before

More information

Appellant s notice (All appeals except small claims track appeals and appeals to the Family Division of the High Court)

Appellant s notice (All appeals except small claims track appeals and appeals to the Family Division of the High Court) Appellant s notice (All appeals except small claims track appeals and appeals to the Family Division of the High Court) Appeal Court Ref.. Date filed For Court use only tes for guidance are available which

More information

James Thom QC. Practice Overview. Company. Offshore. Property. Called: 1974 Silk Date: (0)

James Thom QC. Practice Overview. Company. Offshore. Property. Called: 1974 Silk Date: (0) Called: 1974 Silk Date: 2003 "A formidable and suave advocate, who has a keen sense of the mood in the courtroom." Company - Legal 500 2017 "He is very calm and impressive. It's amazing how much information

More information

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 2 December 2014 On 16 December 2014 Dictated on 9 December 2014.

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 2 December 2014 On 16 December 2014 Dictated on 9 December 2014. IAC-FH-CK-V1 Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Numbers: IA/36823/2013 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 2 December 2014 On 16 December 2014

More information

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE CHAMBERLAIN. Between AASTHA JOSHI SWADHIN BATAJOO (ANONYMITY DIRECTION NOT MADE) and

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE CHAMBERLAIN. Between AASTHA JOSHI SWADHIN BATAJOO (ANONYMITY DIRECTION NOT MADE) and Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 5 December 2017 On 12 January 2018 Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE CHAMBERLAIN

More information

SAMOA SEGREGATED FUND INTERNATIONAL COMPANIES ACT 2000

SAMOA SEGREGATED FUND INTERNATIONAL COMPANIES ACT 2000 SAMOA SEGREGATED FUND INTERNATIONAL COMPANIES ACT 2000 Arrangement of Provisions PART 1 PRELIMINARY 1. Short title and commencement 2. Interpretation 3. Restriction on interest in segregated fund international

More information

- and THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HER MAJESTY S REVENUE AND CUSTOMS. Sitting in public at the Rolls Building, Fetter Lane, London EC4A 1NL on 6 July 2017

- and THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HER MAJESTY S REVENUE AND CUSTOMS. Sitting in public at the Rolls Building, Fetter Lane, London EC4A 1NL on 6 July 2017 [2017] UKUT 0290 (TCC) Appeal number UT/2016/0156 Income Tax Seed Enterprise Investment Scheme compliance statement completed using form for Enterprise Investment Scheme by mistake whether compliance statement

More information

Before : MASTER GORDON-SAKER Senior Costs Judge Between :

Before : MASTER GORDON-SAKER Senior Costs Judge Between : Neutral Citation Number: [2015] EWHC B13 (Costs) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE SENIOR COURTS COSTS OFFICE Case No: AGS/1503814 Royal Courts of Justice, London, WC2A 2LL Date: 17 th August 2015 Before :

More information

The facts of these cases are described in detail in our judgment of 7 July 1999 and we do not repeat them now.

The facts of these cases are described in detail in our judgment of 7 July 1999 and we do not repeat them now. R v Allen COURT OF APPEAL, CRIMINAL DIVISION LAWS LJ, MOSES J AND JUDGE CRANE Alan Newman QC and James Kessler for Allen. Amanda Hardy and Tina Davey for Dimsey. Peter Rook QC and Jonathan Fisher for the

More information

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 31 March 2016 On 19 April Before

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 31 March 2016 On 19 April Before IAC-FH-AR-V1 Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: AA/06365/2015 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 31 March 2016 On 19 April 2016 Before

More information

Mortgage Terms and Conditions (T&Cs)

Mortgage Terms and Conditions (T&Cs) Mortgage Terms and Conditions (T&Cs) Banking with Atom is straightforward, so we ve split our T&Cs into three manageable chunks: General T&Cs; Product T&Cs; and product specific documents, based on the

More information

- and - TRATHENS TRAVEL SERVICES LIMITED

- and - TRATHENS TRAVEL SERVICES LIMITED Case No: 9PF00857 IN THE LEEDS COUNTY COURT Leeds Combined Court The Courthouse 1 Oxford Row Leeds LS1 3BG Date: 9 th July 2010 Before : HIS HONOUR JUDGE S P GRENFELL Between : LEROY MAKUWATSINE - and

More information

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Promulgated On 22 December 2014 On 8 January Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE HANBURY. Between

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Promulgated On 22 December 2014 On 8 January Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE HANBURY. Between Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: AA/03806/2014 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Determination Promulgated On 22 December 2014 On 8 January 2015 Before DEPUTY UPPER

More information

HEARING DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE ASSOCIATION OF CHARTERED CERTIFIED ACCOUNTANTS

HEARING DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE ASSOCIATION OF CHARTERED CERTIFIED ACCOUNTANTS DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE ASSOCIATION OF CHARTERED CERTIFIED ACCOUNTANTS REASONS FOR DECISION In the matter of: Mr Jawad Raza Heard on: Thursday 7 and Friday 8 June 2018 Location: ACCA Head Offices,

More information

Number 10 of 2009 SOCIAL WELFARE AND PENSIONS ACT 2009 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS PART 1. Preliminary and General PART 2

Number 10 of 2009 SOCIAL WELFARE AND PENSIONS ACT 2009 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS PART 1. Preliminary and General PART 2 Number 10 of 2009 SOCIAL WELFARE AND PENSIONS ACT 2009 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS PART 1 Preliminary and General Section 1. Short title and construction. 2. Definitions. PART 2 Amendments to Social Welfare

More information

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Heard at Birmingham Sheldon Court Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 21 st April 2016 On 14 th June 2016.

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Heard at Birmingham Sheldon Court Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 21 st April 2016 On 14 th June 2016. Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Birmingham Sheldon Court Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 21 st April 2016 On 14 th June 2016 Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL

More information

EILEEN LOUVET REAL ESTATE (PTY) LTD A F C PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT CO (PTY) LTD. CORAM: VAN HEERDEN, E.M. GROSSKOPF JJA et NICHOLAS AJA

EILEEN LOUVET REAL ESTATE (PTY) LTD A F C PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT CO (PTY) LTD. CORAM: VAN HEERDEN, E.M. GROSSKOPF JJA et NICHOLAS AJA LL Case No 462/1987 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA APPELLATE DIVISION In the matter between: EILEEN LOUVET REAL ESTATE (PTY) LTD Appellant and A F C PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT CO (PTY) LTD Respondent CORAM:

More information

- and - TRIBUNAL: JUDGE SWAMI RAGHAVAN. Sitting in public at the Royal Courts of Justice, London on 4 December 2015

- and - TRIBUNAL: JUDGE SWAMI RAGHAVAN. Sitting in public at the Royal Courts of Justice, London on 4 December 2015 Appeal number: TC/14/06012 INCOME TAX Funded Unapproved Retirement Benefit Scheme (FURBS) trustees of FURBS invested in LLP engaged in trade of property development - whether profits from LLP exempt from

More information

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. 19 November February Before MR C M G OCKELTON, VICE PRESIDENT UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE DEANS.

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. 19 November February Before MR C M G OCKELTON, VICE PRESIDENT UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE DEANS. Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Glasgow Promulgated on 19 November 2015 24 February 2016 Before MR C M G OCKELTON, VICE PRESIDENT UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE DEANS

More information

LAWS OF GUYANA. Deeds Registry Authority Cap.5: 11 3 CHAPTER 5:11 DEEDS REGISTRY AUTHORITY ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS

LAWS OF GUYANA. Deeds Registry Authority Cap.5: 11 3 CHAPTER 5:11 DEEDS REGISTRY AUTHORITY ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS Deeds Registry Authority Cap.5: 11 3 CHAPTER 5:11 DEEDS REGISTRY AUTHORITY ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS SECTION 1. Short title and commencement. 2. Interpretation. 3. Establishment of Deeds Registry as body

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: HBU Properties Pty Ltd & Ors v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited [2015] QCA 95 HBU PROPERTIES PTY LTD AS TRUSTEE FOR THE SHANE MUNDEY FAMILY

More information

Ombudsman s Determination

Ombudsman s Determination Ombudsman s Determination Applicant Scheme Respondents Mr M The Fire Brigades Union Retirement and Death Benefits Scheme (the FBU Scheme) The Fire Brigades Union (FBU) Outcome 1. Mr M s complaint is upheld

More information

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Heard at Birmingham Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 15 th July 2016 On 26 th July Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE HEMINGWAY

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Heard at Birmingham Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 15 th July 2016 On 26 th July Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE HEMINGWAY Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: OA/16164/2014 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Birmingham Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 15 th July 2016 On 26 th July 2016 Before UPPER TRIBUNAL

More information

Syed (curtailment of leave notice) [2013] UKUT IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE SPENCER. Between. and

Syed (curtailment of leave notice) [2013] UKUT IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE SPENCER. Between. and Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Syed (curtailment of leave notice) [2013] UKUT 00144 IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House on 18 th January 2013 Determination Promulgated Before

More information

COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA

COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Royal Bank of Canada v. Tuxedo Date: 20000710 Transport Ltd. 2000 BCCA 430 Docket: CA025719 Registry: Vancouver COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA BETWEEN: THE ROYAL BANK OF CANADA PETITIONER

More information

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. On 1 February 2018 On 26 February 2016 Determination prepared 1 February Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE MCGEACHY

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. On 1 February 2018 On 26 February 2016 Determination prepared 1 February Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE MCGEACHY Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: IA/34508/2015 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 1 February 2018 On 26 February 2016 Determination

More information

- and - TRIBUNAL: JUDGE JOHN BROOKS. Sitting in public at the Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London on 11 November 2016

- and - TRIBUNAL: JUDGE JOHN BROOKS. Sitting in public at the Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London on 11 November 2016 [2016] UKFTT 772 (TC) TC05499 Appeal number: TC/2012/08116 PROCEDURE Appeal against discovery assessment - Case management directions for progress of appeal Whether appellant or respondents should open

More information

MH (pending family proceedings-discretionary leave) Morocco [2010] UKUT 439 (IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before SENIOR IMMIGRATION JUDGE JARVIS

MH (pending family proceedings-discretionary leave) Morocco [2010] UKUT 439 (IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before SENIOR IMMIGRATION JUDGE JARVIS Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) MH (pending family proceedings-discretionary leave) Morocco [2010] UKUT 439 (IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House On 20 September 2010 Determination

More information

SCCO rules conditional fee agreements in personal injury case were validly assigned

SCCO rules conditional fee agreements in personal injury case were validly assigned SCCO rules conditional fee agreements in personal injury case were validly assigned Mohammed Azim v. Tradewise Insurance Services Ltd [2016] EWHC B20 (Costs) Article by David Bowden Master Leonard sitting

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN TOTAL IMAGE INCORPORATED LIMITED AND VENTURE CREDIT UNION CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED STEPHEN FULLERTON

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN TOTAL IMAGE INCORPORATED LIMITED AND VENTURE CREDIT UNION CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED STEPHEN FULLERTON THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CLAIM NO. CV. 2009-00296 H.C.A. No. 1903 of 2004 BETWEEN TOTAL IMAGE INCORPORATED LIMITED CLAIMANT AND VENTURE CREDIT UNION CO-OPERATIVE

More information

An Analysis of the Concepts of 'Present Entitlement'

An Analysis of the Concepts of 'Present Entitlement' Revenue Law Journal Volume 13 Issue 1 Article 9 January 2003 An Analysis of the Concepts of 'Present Entitlement' Anna Everett Bond University Follow this and additional works at: http://epublications.bond.edu.au/rlj

More information

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Promulgated On 3 rd September 2015 On 14 th September Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE KELLY.

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Promulgated On 3 rd September 2015 On 14 th September Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE KELLY. Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: AA/00465/2015 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Bradford Decision and Reasons Promulgated On 3 rd September 2015 On 14 th September 2015 Before

More information

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Bazzo v Commissioner of Taxation [2017] FCA 71 File number: NSD 1828 of 2016 Judge: ROBERTSON J Date of judgment: 10 February 2017 Catchwords: TAXATION construction of Deed of

More information