Dispute Resolution analysis: The Court of Appeal has dismissed claims brought by members of a limited liability partnership (LLP) against the former administrators of the LLP, despite concerns raised by the members as to the relationship between the administrators and the lending bank and the alleged precipitous administration and sale at an undervalue of the LLP’s main asset to a party connected to the bank. The appellants had been given numerous opportunities to put forward their case and the court was satisfied the claims had no prospect of success and should be dismissed.

Tax analysis: James Le Gallais and Anastasia Nourescu of Stewarts review the first Court of Appeal judgment to consider the application of the Business Premises Renovation Allowance (BPRA) on the conversion of a flight training centre near London Luton Airport into a hotel. The court found in favour of HMRC, construing the scope of the allowance narrowly and limiting the types of expenditure that qualify for BPRA. The decision will impact several open HMRC enquiries on BPRA and will also be relevant to other capital allowances that turn on whether expenditure was incurred for a particular purpose. HMRC is paying close attention to tax relief claims more generally, and it remains to be seen whether it will seek to rely on this judgment to take a more restrictive approach to such claims.

When dealing with the doctrine of ex turpi the Court of Appeal has formulated the principle that 'where the character of the joint criminal enterprise is such that it is foreseeable that a party or parties may be subject to unusual or increased risks of harm as a consequence of the activities of the parties in pursuance of their criminal objectives, and the risk materialises, the injury can properly be said to be caused by the criminal act of the claimant even if it results from the negligent or intentional act of another party to the illegal enterprise'.

The Court of Appeal has unanimously upheld the Competition and Markets Authority's (CMA) finding that Advanz broke competition law through excessive pricing of liothyronine tablets to the NHS between 2009-2017. The court reinstated the CMA's original £51.9m fine on private equity firm Cinven, which the Competition Appeal Tribunal had reduced to £37.1m in 2023. The total fines now stand at £99m, divided between Advanz (£40.9m), Cinven (£51.9m), and HgCapital (£6.2m). The ruling follows a three-day hearing in December 2024, where the court found no arguable basis to challenge the CMA's findings.

Employment news analysis: The Court of Appeal has upheld the decision of the EAT that a pilot contracted to work for Ryanair through an agency was a worker employed by the agency (and not Ryanair), and that the Agency Workers Regulations 2010 protections apply even if there was a fixed term of relatively long duration (in this case five years).

Tax analysis: In Brown and another, the Court of Appeal held that a marketed SDLT scheme failed. The scheme involved a distribution in specie of a house by a company and was intended to result in no liability under the former sub-sale rules in section 45 of the Finance 2003 (FA 2003).

Private Client analysis: On 13 February 2025, the Court of Appeal handed down a judgment in A Taxpayer v The Commissioners for HMRC, an appeal against the Upper Tribunal's decision of 28 July 2023 which concerned the interpretation of the exceptional circumstances exemption (paragraph 22(4) of Schedule 45 Part 1 to the Finance Act 2013(‘para 22(4)’)) in the statutory residence test. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and restored the FTT decision, holding that the taxpayer could rely on the exceptional circumstances exemption and was not tax resident in the UK as a result in the relevant tax year. The Upper Tribunal's decision had significantly narrowed the extent to which circumstances might be treated as exceptional for the purposes of the exemption. By overturning it, the Court of Appeal has given taxpayers clarity on their position under the statutory residence test in the event that they are prevented from leaving the UK due to exceptional circumstances. Written by Carol Katz, partner, knowledge lawyer at Mishcon de Reya LLP.

Tax analysis: In David McClean and others v Andrew Thornhill KC, the Court of Appeal (CA) found that the High Court had not made an error of law in deciding that an eminent tax barrister, Mr Thornhill KC, who advised a failed film finance tax scheme (the Scheme), did not owe a duty of care to investors in the Scheme. However, the CA considered the High Court was wrong to conclude that, had such a duty of care been owed to the investors, it would not have been breached.

IP analysis: The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal against a decision of the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC) to refuse an application for an injunction by Glencairn IP Holdings Ltd (Glencairn) to prevent a firm of solicitors from acting for the defendants, Final Touch, in a design dispute. Glencairn had applied to restrain the solicitors from acting in the case in order to prevent the disclosure of confidential information which related to earlier proceedings in which they had acted against Glencairn. In reaching its decision on the case, the Court of Appeal clarified the scope of the jurisdiction set out in Prince Jefri Bolkiah v KPMG [1999] 2 AC 222 in conflict of interest cases.

IP analysis: This decision from Lord Justice Arnold is worth reading if one will be instructing an expert in a patent case. The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal against the Patent Court’s finding that a patent was not invalid over cited prior art. A key reason for the failure of the obviousness attacks was that the expert’s reasoning was tainted by hindsight. Written by Giles Parsons, partner at Browne Jacobson, and Annabel Taylor, trainee at Browne Jacobson.

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: The Court of Appeal has dismissed appeals against the High Court’s decision to sanction Thames Water’s restructuring plan under Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006). The Plan faced opposition from out-of-the-money creditors, a shareholder, and a Member of Parliament raising public interest concerns. The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s exercise of discretion, affirming that fairness must be assessed on a case-by-case basis and that interim plans preserving a business as a going concern can justify cross-class cram down. It further confirmed that public interest objections carry limited weight where regulators do not oppose the plan and emphasised that third-party releases must be narrowly defined and carefully justified. The decision offers key guidance on judicial discretion, the treatment of dissenting creditor classes, and the limits of public interest arguments in restructuring cases, providing greater clarity for practitioners navigating complex restructuring scenarios. Written by Kevin Mulligan, senior associate at Greenberg Traurig, LLP.

Tax analysis: In HMRC v BlueCrest Capital Management LP and others and Andrew Dodd and others v HMRC, the Court of Appeal considered the tax treatment of awards made to partners under an incentivisation plan. It upheld the decision of the First-tier Tax Tribunal and the Upper Tribunal (UT) that, although the awards did not constitute profit share allocations, they were nevertheless income and subject to income tax as miscellaneous income under section 687 of the Income Tax (Trading and Other Income) Act 2005 (ITTOIA 2005).