Tax analysis: This Court of Appeal case considered the application of the ‘unallowable purpose’ rule in section 441 of the Corporation Tax Act 2009, confirming the First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) and Upper Tribunal’s (UT) decisions to deny interest deductions fully or partly in respect of intra-group debt under the loan relationship rules. There was an obvious single unallowable purpose for the reorganisation implemented by the group, which was to enable ‘trapped’ losses (non-trading loan relationship deficits) to be utilised on an accelerated basis and an overall tax saving achieved for the group (as a result of increased tax deductions that would not be matched by corresponding taxable income). Further, the tribunals had not erred in their application of the just and reasonable apportionment provision when determining the extent of the deductions attributable to the unallowable purpose (and therefore disallowed). Written by Natasha Kaye, partner at Cooley LLP.

Tax analysis: In Beard v HMRC (2 May 2025), the Court of Appeal upheld decisions of the First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) and Upper Tribunal (UT) that distributions the taxpayer received from an overseas company, which were debited from the company’s share premium account, were dividends that were not capital in nature and were therefore chargeable to income tax.

Planning analysis: In Roxlena v The Ramblers’ Association, the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal and upheld the quashing of an inspector’s refusal to confirm a definitive map modification order. The court held that, under section 31(1) of the Highways Act 1980 (HiA 1980), a period of non-use is not necessarily fatal to deemed dedication. The decision distinguishes an ‘intermission’ in use from an ‘interruption’ and confirms that the effect of any gap must be assessed over the whole 20-year period, including any objectively apparent explanation for non-use.

Public Law analysis: This Immigration analysis considers the impact of R (Refugee and Migrant Forum of Essex and London) v Home Secretary, in which the Court of Appeal found that not retrospectively issuing e-visas to people with leave to remain in the UK under section 3C of the Immigration Act 1971 (IA 1971) did not breach section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 (BCIA 2009).

Planning analysis: The Court of Appeal has upheld the decision of the High Court quashing the grant of planning permission by a planning inspector, notwithstanding a unilateral undertaking having been entered into by the landowner whose intent was to cure the recognised defect in a condition to which the grant of permission had been made subject. While a unilateral undertaking (or section 106 agreement) was in principle capable of curing a defect in the prior planning process, it failed to do so in the instant case because the error was so fundamental. Written by Riccardo Calzavara, barrister, at Cornerstone Barristers.

Tax analysis: The ongoing dispute between HMRC and Bluecrest Capital Management on the scope of the salaried members rules has been sent back to the First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) by the Court of Appeal. Any hope that the Court of Appeal could bring some clarity to proceedings was dashed as it held that both parties, the Upper Tribunal (UT), the FTT and HMRC's own published guidance were all wrong and the only recourse was for the FTT to effectively start again. The Court of Appeal held that only influence arising from the terms of the partnership itself, in effect the partnership agreement, was relevant and that practical or de facto influence seemingly does not matter at all. Since neither Tribunal had approached the question in this light hitherto, the Court directed that they now do so now. Written by Tom Rank, tax partner at DWF Law LLP.

Corporate Crime analysis: Michael Borrelli QC, barrister at 3 Raymond Buildings, and Fiona Robertson, barrister at 2 Hare Court, examine the Court of Appeal’s decision in R v Woodward and others that a jury’s guilty verdicts had not been rendered unsafe by the jury having been dispersed twice for three-week breaks during its deliberations (to allow some of the jurors to go on their pre-booked holidays when the trial overran).

Dispute Resolution analysis: Adam Walker, barrister, at 7BR, examines the Court of Appeal’s decision that where judgment debtors apply to pay their debt in instalments under CPR 40.9A or CPR 40.11, the court has to exercise its discretion in such a way that the rights of the judgment creditors are properly respected and not to interfere with the creditors’ right to seek enforcement of the judgment by whatever means are available to them.

The Court of Appeal has updated its case tracker for Civil Appeals to note that it has granted an application for permission to appeal the decision of the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) in Markou v The Financial Conduct Authority [2023] UKUT 101 (TCC).

Dispute Resolution analysis: The Court of Appeal has given guidance on the proper procedure for group litigation on environmental issues. Allowing the claimants’ appeal against a decision requiring the claim to be pleaded as a ‘global’ or ‘all-or-nothing’ claim, the court held this was a ‘paradigm example’ of litigation which should be progressed by lead cases. The court also highlighted the importance of disclosure in placing parties on an ‘equal footing’. While the court should be alert to disallow ‘fishing expeditions’ on disclosure, it is a powerful tool for achieving justice in cases where there is a significant asymmetry of information. Written by Harriet Campbell, senior knowledge lawyer at Penningtons Manches Cooper LLP.

IP analysis: Following the first instance decision Shenzhen Carku v NOCO (discussed in our previous Case Analysis ‘Unjustified threats—communications to IP complaints portal of an online retailer for patent infringement’), NOCO appealed on the legal point that their complaints filed with Amazon according to ‘Amazon Intellectual Property Policy’ did not amount to a threat of infringement proceedings. Despite the fact that the Amazon policy for handling IP complaints may be regarded as an alternative dispute resolution process, the Court of Appeal emphasised that the statutory question pertains to whether a reasonable person in the position of Amazon who receives the complaint would consider it as a threat (whether to Amazon or ‘another person’). Taking account of the circumstances of the case, including NOKO’s additional request in the complaint to delist the impugned products even before any investigation, the Court of Appeal concluded that the complaint was, at the very least, a ‘veiled threat’. Written by Nigel Lee, associate, patent attorney, and Jonathan Jackson, partner, patent attorney, at D Young & Co LLP.

TMT analysis: Ben Silverstone of Matrix Chambers discusses R v Sarker, which contains important general guidance from the Court of Appeal on how applications for reporting restrictions orders—sought under section 4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981(CCA 1981)—ought to be approached.