Results: 817

• Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation v Revenue and Customs Comrs

  12 Dec 2008 [2008] EWHC 2893 (Ch); [2009] STC 254, Ch D (Henderson J)

  23 Feb 2010 [2010] EWCA Civ 103; [2010] STC 1251; [2010] WLR (D) 58, CA

  23 May 2012 [2012] UKSC 19; [2012] 2 AC 337; [2012] 2 WLR 1149; [2012] Bus LR 1033; [2012] 3 All ER 909; [2012] STC 1362; [2012] WLR (D) 161; Case details, SC(E)

  12 Dec 2013 (Case C-362/12); EU:C:2013:834; [2014] AC 1161; [2014] 3 WLR 743; [2014] All ER (EC) 375; [2014] STC 638; [2014] 2 CMLR 33; [2013] WLR (D) 488, ECJ

  23 Jul 2021 [2021] UKSC 31; [2021] 1 WLR 4354; [2022] 1 All ER 751; [2021] STC 1597; [2021] WLR(D) 446, SC(E) (Lord Reed PSC, Lord Hodge DPSC, Lord Briggs, Lord Sales, Lord Hamblen JJSC)

  Subsequent considerations : 4 positive; 2 neutral; 1 negative; most recently considered: 2020. Subsequent citations: 102.
  REVENUE — Corporation tax — Advance corporation tax

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY — Breach of Community law — Domestic remedy

  RESTITUTION — Quasi-contract — Moneys had and received

  EUROPEAN UNION — Breach of European Union law — Domestic remedy

  REVENUE — Taxpayers paying advance corporation tax in breach of European Union law — Proper approach to calculating amount payable to taxpayers in restitution

  EUROPEAN UNION — Judicial protection — Principle of effectiveness
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  REVENUE — Corporation tax — Advance corporation tax — United Kingdom resident companies entitled to deduct advance corporation tax paid on nationally-sourced dividends when paying dividends to UK shareholders — No entitlement to deduct foreign tax paid on foreign-sourced dividends — Court of Justice of European Communities holding rule withholding tax credit from non-resident shareholders precluded by EC law — Whether further reference to Court of Justice required — Differential treatment of foreign-sourced and nationally-sourced dividends under United Kingdom law — Whether differential treatment precluded by European Community law — EC Treaty, arts 43EC, 56EC, 57EC

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY — Breach of Community law — Domestic remedy — Claims for recovery of taxes unduly levied — Requirement that domestic law of member state provide effective remedy for recovery of taxes levied contrary to Community law — English law providing resitutionary remedy of recovery of unlawfully exacted taxes — Claimant relying on alternative remedy of recovery of sums paid under mistake of law — Whether Community law requirement extending to alternative remedy so as to preclude statutory curtailment of limitation period if contrary to Community law principles — Finance Act 2004, s 320 — Finance Act 2007, s 107

  RESTITUTION — Quasi-contract — Moneys had and received — Statute levying tax contrary to EU law — Payments of moneys to revenue in accordance with taxing statute — Payments made without prior formal demand by revenue — Taxpayers’ right to recover unlawfully exacted taxes — Whether applicable in absence of demand by revenue — Whether within statutory provision extending limitation period for actions for relief from consequences of mistake — Whether applicable where recovery possible under statutory right for repayment of tax paid by error or mistake — Taxes Management Act 1970 (as amended by Finance Act 1994, s 196, Sch 19, para 8(2)), s 33(1)(2A) — Limitation Act 1980, s 32(1)(c)

  EUROPEAN UNION — Breach of European Union law — Domestic remedy — Claims for recovery of taxes unduly levied — Requirement that domestic law of member state provide effective remedy for recovery of taxes levied contrary to European Union law — English common law restitutionary remedy enabling recovery of unlawfully exacted taxes — Claimants relying on alternative remedy of recovery of sums paid under mistake of law — National statutory provisions curtailing limitation period for applicable remedies without notice and retroactively — Whether European Union principles of effectiveness, legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations precluding statutory curtailment of limitation period for alternative remedy — Limitation Act 1980, s 32(1)(c) — Finance Act 2004, s 320

  REVENUE — Corporation tax — Advance corporation tax — Different tax treatment of nationally-sourced and foreign-sourced dividends received by UK-resident companies contrary to EU law — Taxpayers entitled to repayment of tax unlawfully levied and tax credits — Revenue making concession that taxpayers entitled to compound interest on restitutionary award — Whether revenue barred from withdrawing concession — Whether and on what basis taxpayers entitled to interest for tax paid prematurely — Whether taxpayers entitled to carry forward unused double taxation relief — Whether revenue enriched by receipt of unlawful tax — Whether amount of repayment reduced if UK companies having foreign parent — Whether EU standstill provision applying after UK altered foreign tax rules — When and to what extent unlawfully charged tax regarded as surrendered — Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988, ss 231, 240 — FEU Treaty, arts 63, 64

  REVENUE — Taxpayers paying advance corporation tax in breach of European Union law — Proper approach to calculating amount payable to taxpayers in restitution

  REVENUE — Corporation tax — Advance corporation tax — Taxpayers’ claims for restitution of tax levied in breach of EU law — Revenue conceding taxpayers entitled to restitution of unlawfully levied tax with compound interest — Whether revenue barred from withdrawing concession to prejudice of taxpayers — Whether and on what basis taxpayers entitled to interest for tax paid prematurely — Whether taxpayers entitled to restitution in respect of unused double taxation relief credits — Whether revenue enriched by receipt of unlawful tax when paying out shareholder credits — Whether EU standstill provision applying after UK altering foreign tax rules — Appropriate method for calculating award where parent company surrendering surplus tax to subsidiary — Senior Courts Act 1981 (c 54), s 35A — Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (c 1), ss 231, 240 — Access to Justice Act 1999 (c 22), s 54(4) — Finance Act 2019 (c 1), s 85 — FEU Treaty, arts 63, 64

  EUROPEAN UNION — Judicial protection — Principle of effectiveness — Principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations — Restitution of sums paid but not due — Remedies — National legislation — Curtailment of the limitation period for the applicable remedies without notice and retroactively

  19 Case(s) considered

  1 EU Enactment considered

  3 Statutes considered
• Bauer v Director of Public Prosecutions

  22 Mar 2013 (Liberty intervening) [2013] EWHC 634 (Admin); [2013] 1 WLR 3617; [2013] WLR (D) 121, DC

  Subsequent considerations : 2 positive; most recently considered: 2022. Subsequent citations: 7.
  CRIME — Aggravated trespass — Disrupting lawful activity
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  CRIME — Aggravated trespass — Disrupting lawful activity — Defendants occupying department store as part of demonstration — Minority of protesters masked and chanting slogans — No evidence of defendants doing any specific act inside store save for participating in demonstration — Whether demonstration act distinct from trespass — Whether defendants guilty of aggravated trespass on joint enterprise basis or as principals — Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, s 68(1)

  2 Case(s) considered

  1 Statute considered
• McGraddie v McGraddie

  31 Jul 2013 [2013] UKSC 58; [2013] 1 WLR 2477; [2013] WLR (D) 323; Case details; 2014 SC (UKSC) 12, SC

  28 Jan 2015 (No 2) [2015] UKSC 1; [2015] 1 WLR 560; [2015] 3 All ER 61; [2015] WLR (D) 36; Case details; 2015 SC (UKSC) 45, SC

  Subsequent considerations : 2 positive; 1 neutral; most recently considered: 2022. Subsequent citations: 95.
  PRACTICE — Appeal — Witness action tried by judge alone

  COSTS — Order for costs — Legal expenses insurance

  LEGAL AID — Scotland — Expenses

  EVIDENCE — Credibility and reliability of witnesses — Opinion of judge who heard witnesses

  EXPENSES — Legal aid — Appeal to UK Supreme Court

  EXPENSES — ‘After the event’ insurance premiums — Whether recoverable as expense
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  PRACTICE — Appeal — Witness action tried by judge alone — Findings of fact — Review by appellate court — Principles applicable

  COSTS — Order for costs — Legal expenses insurance — Defenders successfully reclaiming before Inner House of Court of Session — Pursuer obtaining after the event insurance for appeal to Supreme Court — Supreme Court allowing appeal — Pursuer seeking order for expenses — Whether insurance premium recoverable as part of expenses — Act of Sederunt (Rules of the Court of Session 1994) 1994, Sch 2, r 42.10 — Supreme Court Rules 2009, r 46(1) — Supreme Court Practice Direction 13, para 3.1

  LEGAL AID — Scotland — Expenses — Order for expenses — Legally aided defenders successfully reclaiming before Inner House of Court of Session — Pursuer appealing — Defenders granted legal aid to respond to appeal — Supreme Court allowing appeal — Whether pursuer entitled to order for expenses from legal aid fund — Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986 (as amended by Legal Aid Act 1988, s 44, Sch 4, para 8), s 19

  EVIDENCE — Credibility and reliability of witnesses — Opinion of judge who heard witnesses — Duty of appellate court

  EXPENSES — Legal aid — Appeal to UK Supreme Court — Unassisted party seeking award of expenses against Scottish Legal Aid Board

  EXPENSES — ‘After the event’ insurance premiums — Whether recoverable as expense — Supreme Court Rules 2009 (SI 2009/1603 (L 17)), r 46

  12 Case(s) considered

  2 Statutes considered

  2 Statutory Instruments considered
• In re L (Children) (Preliminary Finding: Power to Reverse) (In re L-B (Children) (Care Proceedings: Power to Revise Judgment))

  18 Jul 2012 [2012] EWCA Civ 984; [2013] 1 FLR 209; [2012] WLR (D) 240, CA

  20 Feb 2013 [2013] UKSC 8; [2013] 1 WLR 634; [2013] 2 All ER 294; [2013] 2 FLR 859; [2013] WLR (D) 69; Case details, SC(E)

  Subsequent considerations : 4 positive; 4 neutral; most recently considered: 2022. Subsequent citations: 118.
  PRACTICE — Judgment — Preliminary fact-finding hearing
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  PRACTICE — Judgment — Preliminary fact-finding hearing — Judge giving extempore judgment in preliminary fact-finding hearing in care proceedings — Judge determining father to be sole perpetrator of child’s injuries — Decision recorded in order but order not sealed — Judge giving second judgment reversing earlier conclusion and stating unable to conclude which parent had caused injuries — Judge’s power to revisit decision before order sealed — Whether to be exercised only in exceptional circumstances

  3 Case(s) considered

• R (A) v Lowestoft Magistrates’ Court

  26 Mar 2013 [2013] EWHC 659 (Admin); [2014] 1 WLR 1489; [2013] WLR (D) 177, DC (Pitchford LJ and Kenneth Parker J)

  CHILDREN — Proceedings concerning — Restrictions on reporting

  HUMAN RIGHTS — Respect for private life — Reporting restrictions
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  CHILDREN — Proceedings concerning — Restrictions on reporting — Claimant convicted of being drunk in public place while having charge of child under age of seven — Justices refusing claimant’s application for order for reporting restrictions — Whether child “concerned in the proceedings … in respect of whom” proceedings taken — Whether justices having jurisdiction to grant application — Licensing Act 1902, s 2(1) (as amended by Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1976, s 1, Sch 1, Pt II, Criminal Justice Act 1982, s 46 and Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, s 174, Sch 17, Pt 2) — Children and Young Persons Act 1933, s 39 (as amended by Children and Young Persons Act 1963, ss 57(1), 64, Sch 5 and Criminal Justice Act 1982, s 46)

  HUMAN RIGHTS — Respect for private life — Reporting restrictions — Claimant councillor convicted of being drunk in public place while having charge of child under age of seven — Claimant applying for order for reporting restrictions in order to prevent identification of child — Justices refusing application — Balance of Convention rights — Whether interference with right to respect for private life justified to protect freedom of expression and to receive and impart information — Whether justices making decision reasonably open to them — Human Rights Act 1998, Sch 1, Pt I, arts 8, 10

  1 Words & Phrases considered

  3 Statutes considered
• Investment Trust Companies v Revenue and Customs Comrs

  26 Mar 2013 [2013] EWHC 665 (Ch); [2013] WLR (D) 125, Ch D (Henderson J)

  12 Feb 2015 [2015] EWCA Civ 82; [2015] STC 1280; [2015] WLR (D) 73, CA

  11 Apr 2017 [2017] UKSC 29; [2018] AC 275; [2017] 2 WLR 1200; [2017] 3 All ER 113; [2017] STC 985; [2017] WLR (D) 284; Case details, SC(E) (Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury PSC, Lord Mance, Lord Reed, Lord Carnwath, Lord Hodge JJSC)

  Subsequent considerations : 2 positive; 2 negative; most recently considered: 2022. Subsequent citations: 55.
  RESTITUTION — Unjust enrichment — Money paid under mistake of law

  REVENUE — Value added tax — Refund

  REVENUE — Value added tax — Assessment
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  RESTITUTION — Unjust enrichment — Money paid under mistake of law — Claimants paying VAT to suppliers of services — VAT subsequently found not to have been payable — Suppliers reclaiming VAT from revenue under statutory procedure and remitting moneys to claimants — Moneys refunded by revenue limited to amount paid by suppliers to revenue, net of input tax — Claimants bringing restitutionary claims against revenue for balance — Extent of revenue’s enrichment — Whether revenue enriched at claimants’ expense — Whether statutory scheme protecting revenue from common law claims — Whether scheme compatible with European Union law — Value Added Tax Act 1994 (c 23), s 80 (as amended by Finance Act 1997 (c 16), s 46 and Finance (No 2) Act 2005 (c 22), s 3)

  REVENUE — Value added tax — Refund — Tax overpaid by taxpayer — Claim by end consumer of VAT charged on services subsequently held to be exempt — Whether taxpayer having mistake-based restitutionary claims for unrecovered VAT — Whether revenue enriched — Whether enrichment at taxpayer’s expense — Whether enrichment unjust — Whether cause of action excluded by statute — Whether taxpayer having directly effective EU law right to reimbursement — Value Added Tax Act 1994, s 80(7)

  REVENUE — Value added tax — Assessment — Claimant investment trusts paying VAT on management services— — VAT mistakenly thought to be due outside prescribed period— — Whether recoverable from defendant— — Value Added Tax Act 1994, s 80

  3 Case(s) considered

  1 Statute considered

• Manchester Ship Canal Co Ltd v United Utilities Water plc (Bridgewater Canal Co Ltd v United Utilities Water plc)

  14 Feb 2012 [2012] EWHC 232 (Ch); [2012] Env LR 31, Ch D (Newey J)

  07 Feb 2013 [2013] EWCA Civ 40; [2013] 1 WLR 2570; [2013] 2 All ER 642; [2013] WLR (D) 50; [2013] Env LR 20, CA (Arden, Sullivan, Patten LJJ)

  02 Jul 2014 (Canal & River Trust intervening) [2014] UKSC 40; [2014] 1 WLR 2576; [2014] 4 All ER 40; [2014] 3 EGLR 81; [2014] WLR (D) 291; The Times, 8 July 2014; Case details, SC(E) (Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury PSC, Lord Clarke of Stone-cum-Ebony, Lord Sumption, Lord Hughes, Lord Toulson JJSC)

  Subsequent citations: 6.
  WATER — Sewerage — Discharge
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  WATER — Sewerage — Discharge — Implied statutory power to discharge surface water and treated effluent from public sewers into private watercourses without owners’ consent — Sewerage functions transferred to commercial sewerage undertakers — Sewerage undertaker continuing to discharge into private watercourses without owners’ consent — Whether implied power continuing under new statutory regime — Whether authorising discharge from future sewage outfalls or only those in use when Act came into force — Water Act 1989, s 4, Sch 2, para 2 — Water Industry Act 1991, ss 94, 106, 116

  6 Case(s) considered

  2 Statutes considered
• Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (No 2)

  11 Jun 2010 [2010] EWHC 1332 (QB); [2010] Lloyd's Rep FC 504; [2010] WLR (D) 148, QBD (Mitting J)

  13 Jan 2011 [2011] EWCA Civ 1; [2012] QB 101; [2011] 3 WLR 714; [2011] 2 All ER 802, CA

  19 Jun 2013 [2013] UKSC 38; [2013] UKSC 39; [2014] AC 700; [2013] 3 WLR 179; [2013] 4 All ER 495; [2013] 4 All ER 533; [2013] Lloyd's Rep FC 580; [2013] HRLR 30; [2013] WLR (D) 244, SC(E) (Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury PSC, Lord Dyson MR, Lord Hope of Craighead DPSC, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Kerr of Tonaghmore, Lord Clarke of Stone-cum-Ebony, Lord Sumption, Lord Reed, Lord Carnwath JJSC)

  Subsequent considerations : 21 positive; 5 neutral; 4 negative; most recently considered: 2022. Subsequent citations: 353.
  STATUTORY INSTRUMENT — Validity — -

  CROWN — Order in Council — Validity

  SUPREME COURT — Jurisdiction — Evidence
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENT — Validity — - — Order directing persons operating in UK financial sector not to do business with claimant with aim of inhibiting development of nuclear weapons by Iran— Whether claimant should have been given opportunity to make representations before order made— Whether order “proportionate” having regard to risk to national interests of United Kingdom posed by Iranian development of nuclear weapons— Human Rights Act 1998, Sch 1, Pt I, art 6(1), Pt II, art 1— Counter-Terrorism Act 2008, Sch 7, paras 1(4), 9(6)— Financial Restrictions (Iran) Order 2009 (SI 2009/2725)

  CROWN — Order in Council — Validity — Treasury making Order in Council containing direction prohibiting transactions or business relationships with Iranian bank in order to prevent facilitation of production of nuclear weapons in Iran— Bank not given opportunity to make representations before making of Order— Bank applying to set aside direction— Whether requirement that least measure be used— Whether existence of less intrusive measure use of which would not significantly compromise legitimate aim of restriction relevant to its proportionality— Whether Order proportionate— Whether procedurally flawed— Whether Parliament excluding common law right to make representations before direction made— Whether Convention right to fair hearing engaged when direction made and laid before Parliament— Whether statutory procedure breaching Convention rights— Whether Order lawful— Human Rights Act 1998 (c 42), Sch 1, Pt I, art 6, Pt II, art 1 — Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 (c 28), ss 62, 63, Sch 7

  CROWN — Order in Council — Validity — Treasury making Order in Council containing direction prohibiting transactions or business relationships with Iranian bank in order to prevent facilitation of production of nuclear weapons in Iran— Bank not given opportunity to make representations before making of Order— Bank applying to set aside direction— Whether requirement that least measure be used— Whether Order proportionate— Whether procedurally flawed— Whether Parliament excluding common law right to make representations before direction made— Whether statutory procedure breaching Convention rights— Whether Order lawful— Human Rights Act 1998 (c 42), Sch 1, Pt I, art 6, Pt II, art 1 — Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 (c 28), ss 62, 63, Sch 7

  SUPREME COURT — Jurisdiction — Evidence — Closed material procedure— Order in Council containing direction prohibiting transactions or business relationships with Iranian bank in order to prevent facilitation of production of nuclear weapons in Iran— Bank’s appeal from court’s refusal to set aside Order— Treasury proposing to rely on closed material in resisting appeal— Whether jurisdiction for Supreme Court to entertain closed material— Whether appropriate to entertain material— Constitutional Reform Act 2005 (c 4), s 40

  8 Case(s) considered

  3 Statutes considered

  1 Statutory Instrument considered
• In re Storm Funding Ltd

  18 Dec 2013 [2013] EWHC 4019 (Ch); [2014] Bus LR 454; [2013] WLR (D) 502, Ch D (David Richards J)

  Subsequent considerations : 1 neutral. Subsequent citations: 4.
  INSOLVENCY — Administration — Distribution of assets
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  INSOLVENCY — Administration — Distribution of assets — Pensions regulator issuing contribution notices against multiple target companies — Whether permissible that aggregate sum specified in notices greater than shortfall sum — Pensions Act 2004, ss 47, 48

  1 Statute considered
• In re Portsmouth City Football Club Ltd (Neumans LLP v Andronikou)

  02 Nov 2012 [2012] EWHC 3088 (Ch); [2013] Bus LR 374; [2013] 1 All ER 975; [2012] WLR (D) 310, Ch D (Morgan J)

  24 Jul 2013 [2013] EWCA Civ 916; [2013] Bus LR 1152; [2014] 1 All ER 12; [2013] WLR (D) 301, CA

  10 Mar 2014 (appn dis) [2014] Bus LR 354, SC(E)

  Subsequent considerations : 1 positive. Subsequent citations: 5.
  INSOLVENCY — Winding up — Expenses of liquidation

  INSOLVENCY — Administration — Expenses of administration
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  INSOLVENCY — Winding up — Expenses of liquidation — Company instructing solicitors in connection with successful application to strike out winding up petition — Solicitors applying for company’s costs to be expense of liquidation — Whether company “person” appearing on petition — Proper approach to awarding company’s costs — Whether costs expense of liquidation — Insolvency Rules 1986, r 4.218(3)(h)

  INSOLVENCY — Administration — Expenses of administration — Solicitors acting for company in connection with winding up petition — Petition suspended on appointment of out of court administrators — Solicitors seeking payment of fees as expense of administration — Whether jurisdiction to order that company pay its own costs of administration out of its assets — Whether order creating necessary disbursement — Whether fees to be treated as administration costs and expenses — Whether court to exercise inherent jurisdiction to order payment of fees — Senior Courts Act 1981, s 51 (as substituted by Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, s 4(1) and amended by Access to Justice Act 1999, s 31) — Insolvency Rules 1986, r 2.67(1)(f)

  14 Case(s) considered

  1 Words & Phrases considered

  1 Statute considered

  2 Statutory Instruments considered