Case summaries

Owners of timeshare units at Regency Villas claimed easements over sporting and recreational facilities at the adjacent Broome Park estate, including a golf course, swimming pool, tennis and squash courts. The Supreme Court held, by majority, that such recreational rights could validly exist as easements.

Regeneron's patents claimed transgenic mice with a hybrid antibody gene structure (Reverse Chimeric Locus) spanning a wide range. The Supreme Court held the patents invalid for insufficiency because the disclosure enabled only mice at the least valuable end of the range, not across the whole claimed scope.

A primary school head teacher was summarily dismissed for failing to disclose her close relationship with a partner convicted of making indecent images of children. The Supreme Court upheld the tribunal's finding that her dismissal was not unfair, confirming her duty to disclose.

The Indian Government obtained a small judgment in Cochin for short delivery of munitions, then pursued a larger cargo damage claim via an Admiralty action in rem in England. The House of Lords held section 34 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 barred the English action, rejecting the fiction that an action in rem is against the ship rather than its owners.

Mozambique sued Privinvest and others alleging bribery and conspiracy relating to three supply contracts financed by sovereign guarantees. Privinvest sought a mandatory stay under section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996, arguing disputes fell within arbitration clauses. The Supreme Court allowed the Republic's appeal, holding that the corruption claims were not matters within the scope of the arbitration agreements.

Forde and McHugh Ltd transferred cash and Treasury Stock to a Funded Unapproved Retirement Benefits Scheme trust for a director's benefit. The Supreme Court held this was not a payment of 'earnings' under section 6(1) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, as the director only held a contingent interest.

Mr Holland directed 42 composite companies through a corporate director structure. When the companies became insolvent owing corporation tax, HMRC sought to hold him personally liable as a de facto director. The Supreme Court held that acting solely as director of a corporate director did not make him a de facto director of the subject companies.

The Supreme Court held, by a 3-2 majority, that LMUK (Nectar's operator) could deduct as input tax the VAT on payments made to redeemers, because the CJEU's preliminary ruling rested on an incomplete factual picture and the redeemers supplied services to LMUK as well as goods to collectors.

A Scottish farming company purchased EU Single Farm Payment entitlements to fund its taxable business activities. HMRC refused to allow deduction of input VAT on the purchases. The Supreme Court dismissed HMRC's appeal, holding the VAT was deductible as business overheads.

Lehman Brothers International (Europe)'s administration generated an unprecedented £7 billion surplus, with around £5 billion payable as statutory interest to creditors. The Supreme Court held that this statutory interest qualified as 'yearly interest' under section 874 of the Income Tax Act 2007, requiring administrators to deduct income tax at source.

London Clubs Management provided free non-negotiable chips and vouchers to gamblers as promotions. The Supreme Court held these 'Non-Negs' were not 'stakes staked' with any value in money or money's worth for gaming duty purposes, dismissing HMRC's appeal.

The Supreme Court held that whether Marks and Spencer could claim UK group relief for losses of its German and Belgian subsidiaries depended on circumstances at the date of the claim, not at the end of the loss-making accounting period. This rejected HMRC's approach.

M&S sought UK group relief for losses of its German and Belgian subsidiaries. The Supreme Court held sequential cross-border loss relief claims are permissible within statutory time limits, pay and file claims were time-barred, and Method E was the correct method of calculating surrenderable losses.

NHS Lothian claimed recovery of historic VAT input tax from 1974-1997 on laboratory services, relying on extrapolation from recent years. The Supreme Court allowed HMRC's appeal, holding the taxpayer must prove the amount of input tax incurred, not merely that some was paid. The principle of effectiveness does not require relaxation of evidentiary standards.

Mrs Staveley transferred her pension into a personal pension plan shortly before her death and omitted to take lifetime benefits, leaving death benefits to her sons. HMRC sought inheritance tax on both. The Supreme Court held only the omission, not the transfer, was chargeable.

The Pendragon Group used a KPMG-designed VAT scheme involving demonstrator cars, exploiting exemptions to recover input tax while paying output tax only on profit margins. The Supreme Court held the scheme was an abuse of law and allowed HMRC's appeal.

Med Hotels marketed hotel accommodation online. HMRC assessed it for VAT as a principal under TOMS. The Supreme Court held Med acted as an agent (intermediary) for hoteliers under the contractual documentation, so TOMS did not apply and the appeal was allowed.

SSE Generation Ltd sought capital allowances for expenditure on water conduits at a hydro-electric scheme. HMRC argued these were 'tunnels' or 'aqueducts' excluded under the Capital Allowances Act 2001. The Supreme Court held that in context, 'tunnel' means a subterranean passage for transportation ways, and 'aqueduct' means a bridge-like structure for carrying water, so the disputed items qualified for allowances.

Taylor Clark Leisure sought to rely on VAT repayment claims made by Carlton, a former member of its VAT group. The Supreme Court held Carlton made the claims on its own behalf, not for TCL, so TCL's claim was time-barred.

Investment trust companies paid VAT on investment management services which were later found to be exempt under EU law. They sought restitution directly from HMRC for amounts their managers could not reclaim. The Supreme Court held no direct claim lay against HMRC.

Rank claimed a VAT refund on takings from multi-terminal slot machines linked to a remote random number generator, arguing they were not 'gaming machines' under Note (3). The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding the takings were taxable.