In this continuation of his casenotes regarding the recent judgment in Regency Villas v. Diamond Resorts by the Court of Appeal, Mark West considers (i) whether the easements could exist given that there was no obligation on the defendants to maintain the facilities (ii) whether the judge was right to allow an easement over future
The High Court has handed down judgment in the British Airways pension scheme litigation, dismissing BA’s claim.
The dispute arose following the Government’s announcement in 2010 that it intended to use CPI instead of RPI for increasing public sector pensions. Due to its public sector origins, this new practice applied to the Airways Pension Scheme.
Mark Mullen appeared for HM Revenue and Customs on its application for summary judgment in a claim brought by Emma Hope, a well-known shoe designer. By her claim, Ms Hope sought to set aside concluded proceedings, alleging fraud on the part of HMRC in those proceedings, and sought damages for misfeasance in public office, breach of statutory duty and breach of duty at common law.
Henry Day examines the decision in Thales UK Ltd v Thales Pension Trustees Ltd  EWHC 666 (Ch) and considers what assistance it can offer practitioners when construing a pension scheme’s indexation and revaluation provisions.
HMRC has won a further round of its long-running and complex litigation against the Icebreaker tax avoidance schemes. In Seven Individuals v HMRC  UKUT 0132 (TC) the Upper Tribunal (Nugee J) dismissed the appeals of a number of individual members of the schemes against the first-instance decision
In its recent judgment in Regency Villas v. Diamond Resorts the Court of Appeal considers a number of questions in relation to sporting and recreational facilities. Can there be an easement to use sporting or other recreational facilities? Are such rights unknown in law if the facilities can only be maintained at considerable expense?
Howard Smith acted on behalf of the appellant in this case. The claim was an appeal by way of a re-hearing under s.10 Party Wall etc Act 1996. Surveyors had made an award directing that the Adjoining Owner should carry out remedial works and recover the cost from the Building Owner.
In the attached article Dov Ohrenstein examines the recent decision in Denso Manufacturing UK Ltd v Great Lakes Reinsurance (UK) plc  EWHC 391 (Comm) which highlights the fact that defendants should not be confident that, if a claim fails,
Radcliffe Chambers barrister, Henry Day, recently wrote an article exploring the issue of when a pension scheme administrator becomes liable to a scheme sanction charge under Section 239 of the Finance Act 2004 and discusses
Dov Ohrenstein comments on the outcome of the appeal on the Illot v Mitson case.