Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: The court held that Mrs Iqbal, the former Islamic wife of a bankrupt (Mr Iqbal) was not entitled to a proprietary estoppel over the former matrimonial home, in circumstances where Mrs Iqbal claimed that Mr Iqbal had assured her, pre-bankruptcy, that she could keep the home as part of their oral Islamic divorce agreement. It was found that there was no detrimental reliance. Mrs Iqbal had not in fact sacrificed any other rights that she had over Mr Iqbal’s other property. It was still open to Mrs Iqbal to argue that she had beneficial interest in Mr Iqbal’s other property, even post-bankruptcy. This case provides an example of the high burden that a party must overcome in order to demonstrate the existence of a proprietary estoppel. The party must show that they have actually suffered material detriment from relying on the assurance. Written by James Freeman, barrister at Enterprise Chambers.

Pensions analysis: The Deputy Pensions Ombudsman has rejected a complaint about the application of an early retirement reduction. Martin Scott of gunnercooke LLP looks at the decision.

Construction analysis: The Technology and Construction Court held, in a trial of preliminary issues, that the general rule against recovery of pure economic loss in tort is not qualified where there is potential liability to third parties on adjoining properties and the highway. The court also held that damage to retaining walls in the properties’ back gardens was not covered under an NHBC policy, and that the Building Regulations did not apply.

Pensions analysis: The Pensions Ombudsman has upheld a complaint about a pension transfer delay. Martin Scott of gunnercooke LLP looks at the decision.

Pensions analysis: The Pensions Ombudsman has upheld a complaint about a pension transfer delay. Martin Scott of gunnercooke LLP looks at the decision.

Pensions analysis: In the determination of Mr S, CAS-59986–N3Z2, the Pensions Ombudsman (PO) has rejected a complaint brought about the calculation of a transfer payment to include a training allowance as part of the member’s pensionable pay following a later court decision holding that training allowances were pensionable. The PO determined that it was reasonable to apply a six-year limitation period for claims, so complainant’s active pensionable service did not fall within the relevant redress period. Martin Scott of gunnercooke LLP looks at the decision.

Tax analysis: The Court of Appeal dismissed the taxpayer’s appeal and agreed with the Upper Tribunal (UT) that a reduced rate of VAT did not apply to the supply of fuel where the supply would otherwise be treated for VAT purposes as part of a larger supply of other goods or services.

Construction analysis: The Technology and Construction Court (TCC) dismissed a claim for damages for professional negligence by a property developer against a consultant engineer after finding that the engineer had failed to act with reasonable skill and care, because the property developer had not relied on the advice given and would not have done anything differently had non-negligent advice been given. The court held that the property developer had failed to establish a sufficient nexus between a particular element of the harm for which it sought damages and the subject matter of the engineering company’s duty of care.

DR analysis: The High Court has rejected an application for relief from sanctions following the claimant’s non-compliance with an ‘unless order’ to pay the hearing fee for the trial by a certain date. The default could not be regarded as trivial as payment was made 3 weeks late notwithstanding the clear risk in the unless order that the claim would be struck out. In addition, whilst both parties had agreed to a vacation of the trial date for other reasons, it was possible that the court would have ordered it to go ahead. As such, the default may have had an effect on other court users as the pre-trial review was abandoned. The court was therefore not prepared to grant relief under CPR 3.9 or to exercise its powers under CPR 3.1.7 to vary or revoke the unless order.

TMT analysis: The High Court held that no remedy was available under section 1 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (PHA 1997) where the claimant, based in the USA, experienced the impact of the alleged harassment outside England and Wales, notwithstanding that the defendant’s conduct originated within the jurisdiction. Following existing authority, the court confirmed that both the relevant acts and their impact must occur within England and Wales for relief to be granted under PHA 1997. By contrast, the claimant succeeded in defamation, obtaining damages and injunctive relief. The decision highlights the differing jurisdictional approaches to harassment and libel claims and raises important questions regarding the availability of remedies for cross-border harassment. Produced in partnership with Lily Walker-Parr of 5RB.

Private Client analysis: The taxpayers were non-domiciled UK residents who were liable to tax in the UK on the remittance basis. They sold shares in an offshore company to another offshore company and agreed to an indemnity in the purchaser’s favour. Following payments made to the purchaser, the taxpayers were released from the indemnity. Questions arose under section 809L of the Income Tax Act 2007 (ITA 2007) whether release from the indemnity gave rise to a service received in the UK and whether the taxpayers’ benefit derives from their income or chargeable gains. The Upper Tribunal held that there was no service received by the taxpayers in the UK but if there had been, any service would have derived indirectly from their income or chargeable gains. Written by Denis Edwards, barrister, Temple Tax Chambers.

1 The parties agree that neither of them has been