Commissioners for HMRC v Taylor Clark Leisure Plc (Scotland) was heard on 11 Apr 2018. Thissteels_becky-311x288 appeal is considering whether certain claims for the return of overpaid VAT are to be treated as having been made by or on behalf of the single taxable person constituted by the Taylor Clark VAT Group, so that any repayment is due to Taylor Clark as the representative member of the single taxable person. This is because, following the CJEU ruling in 2005 that VAT was not, and never had been, payable on income from gaming machines, claims were made for overpayment of VAT by Carlton, which was part of the Taylor Clark VAT Group from 1990 to 1998. As the single taxable person of the Taylor Clark VAT Group, the respondent in the appeal to the Supreme Court is seeking the repayment of the VAT sums claimed by Carlton, which have so far been refused by HMRC.

KO (Nigeria) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and other cases were heard on 17-18 Apr 2018. These appeals arose in the context of foreign nationals who have committed criminal offences in the UK and who the Home Secretary then decided to deport. The challenge to deportation was on the grounds that the deportation would be unduly harsh on the individual’s children under the Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, s 117C(5) and/or the Immigration Rules 2014, para 399. The matter for the Supreme Court’s consideration is the weight of the public interest in deportation as against the harshness of the effect of the deportation on the individual’s children.

Goldman Sachs International v Novo Banco SA was heard 17-18 Apr 2018. This appeal arose as a result of the transfer of a number of liabilities from Banco Espirito Santo SA to the respondent under a resolution by the Banco de Portugal. The appellants contend that these included a liability arising from a Facility Agreement between Banco Espirito Santo SA and Oak Finance Luxembourg SA from 2014. This Facility Agreement contained an express choice of English law and jurisdiction; however in December 2014 Banco de Portugal issued a decision stating that the Oak liability had not been transferred and so no repayments have been made. The Supreme Court must determine whether the obligation under Directive 2001/24/EC, art 3 to apply any reorganisation measures in accordance with the law of their home member state meant that the effect of a reorganisation measure taken by Banco de Portugal to transfer liabilities fell to be determined by the effect in Portuguese law of a later decision in December 2014 and/or whether the December 2014 decision was itself a reorganisation measure which required recognition by the English courts.

R v AB & CD was heard on 19 Apr 2018. This appeal requires the Court to determine whether the phrase ‘has reasonable cause to suspect’ in the Terrorism Act 2000, s 17(b) has the same meaning as ‘has a reasonable suspicion’. The facts surround charges brought against a couple for making three payments to a third party on the request of their son who had travelled to the Middle East, allegedly into territory controlled by ISIS. The prosecution case is that the couple, though in no way supporting ISIS, nevertheless sent money in circumstances where they either knew or had reasonable cause to suspect that it might have been used for terrorist purposes.

Banca Nazionale del Lavoro SPA v Playboy Club London Ltd & Ors was heard on 24 Apr 2018. This appeal arose because the respondent bank provided a reference to the appellant casino as to the means and standing of one of the customers, Mr Barakat, resulting in the casino granting Mr Barakat a cheque cashing facility. However it subsequently transpired that the cheques were counterfeit and there were never any funds in Mr Barakat’s account with the bank and therefore the appellant could not recover its losses. The question for the Supreme Court is whether a duty of care for a negligent misstatement is capable of arising through an agent for the benefit of an undisclosed principal.

Totel Ltd v Commissioners for HMRC was heard on 25-26 Apr 2018. This appeal considers whether the prepayment rule for VAT infringes the EU law principle of equivalence. The issue arose in the context of the appellant appealing against two ‘claw-back’ assessments by which HMRC sought to recover input tax for which it had given credit but subsequently decided was not deductible input tax.

In the matter of an application by Siobhan Mclaughlin for Judicial Review (NI) was heard on 30 Apr 2018. This appeal considers the law on state benefits, with the Court considering the case of the appellant, who had lived with her partner for 23 years and had four children with him prior to his death. She was then not permitted to receive Bereavement Payment or Widowed Parent’s Allowance because the couple were not married or in a civil partnership. Therefore the Supreme Court is to determine whether the Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act 1992, s 39A(1) which provides for payment of a Widowed Parent’s Allowance is incompatible with EHCR, art 14 read with art 8 and/or Protocol 1, art 1.

R (Hallam) v Secretary of State for Justice; R (Nealon) v Secretary of State for Justice were heard on 8-9 May 2018. These appeals arise following the quashing of the convictions of the appellants for serious criminal offences. The appellants were then both refused compensation by the Secretary of State under the Criminal Justice Act 1988, s 133(1ZA) because it was contended that they did not meet the criteria of a ‘new or newly discovered fact [which] shows beyond reasonable doubt that there has been a miscarriage of justice’. As a result of this, the matter for the Supreme Court is whether this provision is incompatible with the presumption of innocence in ECHR, art 6(2).

JP Whitter (Water Well Engineers) Ltd v Commissioners for HMRC was heard on 10 May 2018. This appeal concerns whether, when HMRC exercise discretion to cancel gross payment registration under the Construction Industry Scheme, they are required to consider the impact on the person holding that registration. This is because, in this case the cancellation of their registration negatively impacted the appellant, family-owned water well engineer business and they contend this should have been a factor weighed by HMRC in their decision to exercise their discretion to cancel their registration.

Owens v Owens was heard on 17 May 2018. The appeal was brought by a wife who filed a petition for divorce in May 2015 following the couple’s separation in February 2015. The wife contended that the marriage had irretrievably broken down due to the husband’s behaviour; however the lower courts considered the examples given of the behaviour did not satisfy the legislative criteria and therefore refused to grant a divorce.  The Supreme Court is to rule on the interpretation of this legislative criteria in the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, s 1(2)(b).

R v MacKinlay & Ors was heard on 23 May 2018. There are strict reporting restrictions in place in this case. The appeal centres on potential criminal proceedings against individuals charged with offences contrary to the Representation of the People Act 1983, relating to election expenses.