Judgment call: 20 February 2012

Employment

Ravat v Halliburton Manufacturing & Services Ltd. (2012) UKSC 1. Supreme Court. Lord Hope JSC; Lady Hale JSC; Lord Kerr JSC; Lord Mance JSC; Lord Brown JSC

8 February 2012

in the UK, but who had worked overseas. The question of whether the employment relationship in such a case had a sufficiently strong connection with the UK to overcome the general rule that the place of employment was decisive as to which law applied was a question of fact and degree.

Appeal dismissed

For the appellant

11 KBW’s John Cavanagh QC; Paull & Williamsons’ Sean Saluja

For the respondent

Matrix Chambers’ Aidan O’Neill QC; Quantum Claims Consultant solicitor Christine McCrossan; Lefevre Litigation

Tax, employment

(1) Reed Employment plc; (2) Reed Employment Staffing Services Ltd; (3) Reed Health Ltd; (4) Learning plc; (5) Reed Learning Staffing Services Ltd; (6) Reed Managed Services; (7) Reed Payroll Management Ltd; (8) Reed Personnel Services; (9) Reed Staffing Services Ltd; (10) RPS Payroll Management Ltd; (11) RPS Staffing Services Ltd; (12) RMS Staffing Services v Revenue and Customs Commissioners. (2012) UKFTT 28 (TC). First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber). John Avery Jones; Colin Bishopp.

6 January 2012 

The court considered assessments to tax made by HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) following its revocation of a dispensation granted in respect of a purported salary sacrifice scheme. It considered the nature of the scheme, focusing in particular on whether temporary workers supplied by an employment business had a series of temporary or permanent workplaces.

Appeal dismissed

For the appellants

Littleton Chambers’ Andrew Clarke QC; Pump Court Tax Chambers’ David Ewart QC and Richard Vallatt; Slaughter and May associate Alan Williams

For the respondents

One Essex Court’s Malcolm Gammie QC; Fountain Court’s Adam Tolley; One Essex Court’s Abra Bompas; Devereux Chambers’ Kate Balmer, instructed directly by the general counsel and solicitor to HMRC

Tax

Revenue & Customs Commissioners v Cotter (2012). EWCA Civ 81. Court of Appeal (Civil Division). Arden LJ; Patten LJ; Richards LJ. 8 February 2012

The Revenue & Customs Commissioners should have followed the procedure under the Taxes Management Act 1970 s.9A if they wished to challenge a claim for employment loss relief the taxpayer had included in his self-assessment return. That was so even if they were correct that, under the relevant statutory provisions governing loss relief claims, that claim could not be the subject of relief against liability to tax for the year to which the return related.

Appeal allowed

For the appellant

Atlas Chambers’ Keith Gordon and Ximena Montes Manzano; JMW’s Deborah Rainford

For the respondent

Temple Tax Chambers’ Scott Redpath, instructed directly by the solicitor for HMRC

Civil procedure

Levy v Ellis-Carr (2012) EWHC 63 (Ch), Chancery Division. Norris J. 23 January 2012

The court gave guidance on the type of medical evidence required to demonstrate that a party had been unable to attend and participate in a hearing, such that it would have justified an adjournment.

Appeal dismissed

For the appellant

Three Doctor Johnson’s Buildings’ Anthony Allston; Charles Henry & Co’s Kevin Gregory

For the respondent

11 Stone Buildings’ Christopher Boardman; Rochman Landaw’s Grant Rechnic

Employment

Wokuri v Kassam (2012) EWHC 105 (Ch). 7 February 2012. Chancery Division. Newey J.

30 January 2012

Interim application by defendant seeking declaration that English courts have no jurisdiction as relationship between claimant, a former domestic servant seeking payment of wages, and defendant was covered by diplomatic immunity. The judge ruled the available materials did not support diplomatic immunity in the present case.

Judgment for claimant

For the claimant

Field Court Chambers’ Arfan Khan; CT Emezie’s Tiki Emezie

For the defendant

Essex Court Chambers’ Professor Dan Sarooshi; Hugh Cartwright & Amin’s Atul Amin

Employment

Amin v Wincanton Group Ltd. Unreported. Employment Appeal Tribunal [EAT]. Judge Serota QC; T Motture; D Bleiman. 25 January 2012

Unlike failure to plead a matter in a claim form, failure to provide further and better particulars was not relevant to the issue of jurisdiction. The EAT therefore

had jurisdiction to entertain a race discrimination claim where a claimant had pleaded the claim in his form, but failed to comply with an order to provide further and better particulars.

Appeal allowed

For the appellant

John Healey litigation friend

For the respondent

Old Square Chambers’ Kara Loraine; Osborne Clarke partner Julian Hemming

Arbitration

Nomihold Securities Inc v Mobile Telesystems Finance SA (2012) EWHC 130 (Comm). Commercial Court (QBD (Comm)). Andrew Smith J. 2 February 2012

An application for an anti-arbitration injunction did not have to be stayed under the Arbitration Act 1996 s.9 because the issues raised by it were not matters “to be referred to arbitration”, as they fell or could also fall to be decided by the court when exercising its supervisory jurisdiction.

Applications refused

For the claimant

Nomihold Securities Inc: 3 Verulam Buildings’ Adrian Beltrami QC; One Essex Court’s Alexander Polley; Simmons & Simmons partner David Sandy

For the defendant

Mobile Telesystems Finance SA: Essex Court Chambers’ Vernon Flynn QC and David Scorey; South Square’s Tom Smith; Latham & Watkins senior associate Daniel Smith