Results: 143

• 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

• In re Bezier Acquisitions Ltd (Practice Note)

  12 Dec 2011 [2011] EWHC 3299 (Ch); [2012] Bus LR 636; [2012] 2 All ER (Comm) 322; [2011] WLR (D) 362, Ch D

  Subsequent citations: 9.
  INSOLVENCY — Practice — Appointment of administrators
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  INSOLVENCY — Practice — Appointment of administrators — Service of notice of intention to appoint administrators — Notice served on company’s solicitor — Whether notice validly served — Whether administrators validly appointed — Insolvency Act 1986, Sch B1, para 26(2) (as inserted by Enterprise Act 2002, Sch 16, para 1) — Insolvency Rules 1986, r 2.8(2) (as inserted by Insolvency (Amendment) Rules 2003, Sch 1(2), para 9)

  2 Case(s) considered

  1 Statute considered

  1 Statutory Instrument considered
• Football Association Premier League Ltd v QC Leisure (Football Association Premier League Ltd v AV Station plc, Football Association Premier League Ltd v Madden)

  24 Jun 2008 [2008] EWHC 1411 (Ch); [2008] FSR 32, Ch D (Kitchin J )

  13 Nov 2008 [2008] EWHC 2897 (Ch); [2009] 1 WLR 1603, Ch D (Kitchin J)

  04 Oct 2011 (Joined cases C-403/08 and C-429/08); EU:C:2011:631; [2012] Bus LR 1321; [2012] All ER (EC) 629; [2011] WLR (D) 286, ECJ

  03 Feb 2012 (No 2) [2012] EWHC 108 (Ch); [2012] FSR 366, Ch D (Kitchin J)

  20 Dec 2012 [2012] EWCA Civ 1708; [2013] Bus LR 866; [2012] WLR (D) 392, CA

  Subsequent considerations : 2 positive; 4 neutral. Subsequent citations: 56.
  PRACTICE — Parties — Joinder

  EUROPEAN UNION — Free competition — Restriction or distortion of competition
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  PRACTICE — Parties — Joinder — Court referring questions to Court of Justice of the European Communities — Non-parties applying to be joined as claimants to national court proceedings in order to take part in preliminary reference procedure — Whether court having jurisdiction to join parties as claimants to national court proceedings for that purpose — Whether discretion to be exercised — CPR r 19.2(2)(a)

  EUROPEAN UNION — Free competition — Restriction or distortion of competition — Broadcasting — Claimant operating system of licences for broadcast of football matches — Each licensee granted exclusive right to broadcast matches in single member state — Each subscriber requiring decoder card to decrypt licensee’s satellite signal — Licensees prohibited under licence agreement from supplying decoder cards to persons outside member state for which licence granted — Businesses in United Kingdom using decoder cards obtained by subterfuge from foreign licensee — Whether cards “illicit device” — Whether national legislation prohibiting import, sale or use of foreign decoder cards contrary to freedom to provide services — Whether objective of protecting intellectual property rights justifying prohibition — Whether contractual prohibition on supplying decoder cards contrary to EU competition law — Whether transient fragments of protected works on television screen “acts of reproduction” — Whether acts exempt — Whether transmission of works “communication to the public” for which authorisation required — Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, ss 297, 298 — FEU Treaty, arts 56FEU, 101FEU — Council Directive 98/84/EC, arts 2, 3 — Council Directive 2001/29/EC, arts 2, 3, 5

  9 Case(s) considered

• In re New Cap Reinsurance Corpn Ltd (New Cap Reinsurance Corpn Ltd v Grant)

  15 Mar 2011 [2011] EWHC 677 (Ch), Ch D (Lewison J)

  09 Aug 2011 [2011] EWCA Civ 971; [2012] Ch 538; [2012] 2 WLR 1095; [2012] Bus LR 772; [2012] 1 All ER 755; [2012] 1 All ER (Comm) 1207; [2011] BCC 937; [2011] BPIR 1428; [2011] WLR (D) 274, CA (Mummery, Lloyd, McFarlane LJJ)

  24 Oct 2012 [2012] UKSC 46; [2013] 1 AC 236; [2012] 3 WLR 1019; [2013] Bus LR 1; [2013] 1 All ER 521; [2013] 1 All ER (Comm) 513; [2012] 2 Lloyd's Rep 615; [2012] BPIR 1204; The Times, 9 November 2012; Case details, SC(E) (Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Lord Mance, Lord Clarke of Stone-cum-Ebony, Lord Sumption JJSC, Lord Collins of Mapesbury)

  Subsequent citations: 59.
  INSOLVENCY — Liquidation — Foreign company
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  INSOLVENCY — Liquidation — Foreign company — Liquidators of foreign companies seeking to enforce in England judgments of United States and Australian courts to recover moneys transferred to defendants before liquidation — Defendants claiming not to have been present in or submitted to jurisdiction of foreign courts — Whether judgments in personam — Whether ordinary rules for enforcing judgments in personam inapplicable to bankruptcy proceedings — Whether judgments enforceable at common law — Whether alternative method of enforcement through international assistance provisions of Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency — Statutory provisions allowing English court to “assist” Australian court in insolvency matter and for registration and enforcement of Australian judgment in “civil or commercial” matter — Whether either provision allowing English court to enforce Australian judgment against defendants — Foreign Judgements (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933, ss 4, 6 — Insolvency Act 1986, s 426 — Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Judgments (Australia) Order 1994, art 4(a) — Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006, Sch 1, arts 2, 21

  4 Case(s) considered

  1 Words & Phrases considered

  2 Statutes considered

  2 Statutory Instruments considered
• Barclays Bank plc v Nylon Capital LLP

  19 May 2010 [2010] EWHC 1139 (Ch); [2010] EWHC 1139 (Ch), Ch D

  18 Jul 2011 [2011] EWCA Civ 826; [2012] Bus LR 542; [2012] 1 All ER (Comm) 912; [2011] 2 Lloyd's Rep 347; [2011] WLR (D) 235, CA

  Subsequent considerations : 2 positive; 2 neutral; 1 negative; most recently considered: 2022. Subsequent citations: 30.
  CONTRACT — Construction — Expert determination clause

  PRACTICE — Judgment — Reserved judgment

  PRACTICE — Stay of proceedings — Expert determination
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  CONTRACT — Construction — Expert determination clause — Stay of proceedings — Dispute arising between defendant partnership and claimant member — Claimant bringing court proceedings for declaration — Defendant seeking stay on ground dispute within expert determination clause in partnership agreement — Whether expert’s jurisdiction first to be determined by expert or court — Whether dispute within clause — Whether proceedings to be stayed — Whether wrong determination of law relating to scope of expert’s mandate challengable

  PRACTICE — Judgment — Reserved judgment — Parties settling action after hearing and requesting court not to give judgment — Relevant factors to be considered — Whether court to give judgment

  PRACTICE — Stay of proceedings — Expert determination — Contract containing expert determination clause — Defendant seeking stay of court proceedings on ground dispute within expert determination clause — Whether expert’s jurisdiction first to be determined by expert or court — Whether proceedings to be stayed

  4 Case(s) considered
• Financial Services Authority v Sinaloa Gold plc (Barclays Bank plc intervening)

  25 Jan 2011 [2011] EWHC 144 (Ch), Ch D (Judge Hodge QC)

  18 Oct 2011 [2011] EWCA Civ 1158; [2012] Bus LR 753; [2011] WLR (D) 295, CA

  27 Feb 2013 [2013] UKSC 11; [2013] 2 AC 28; [2013] 2 WLR 678; [2013] Bus LR 302; [2013] 2 All ER 339; [2013] 1 All ER (Comm) 1089; [2013] WLR (D) 90; Case details, SC(E)

  Subsequent considerations : 1 positive; 1 neutral. Subsequent citations: 17.
  INJUNCTION — Interlocutory — Undertaking as to damages
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  INJUNCTION — Interlocutory — Undertaking as to damages — Financial Services Authority alleging defendants operating share scam and obtaining interlocutory freezing injunction against them — Order including standard cross-undertaking to pay third parties’ costs and losses — Authority subsequently seeking to exclude losses from undertaking — Whether cross-undertaking liability in “damages” — Whether authority’s statutory immunity in respect of damages rending cross-undertaking unenforceable — Whether court to exercise discretion to require authority exercising law enforcement role to give undertaking to third parties — Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, Sch 1, para 19

  6 Case(s) considered

  1 Words & Phrases considered

  1 Statute considered

• Systech International Ltd v PC Harrington Contractors Ltd

  27 Oct 2011 [2011] EWHC 2722 (TCC); [2012] Bus LR 1013; [2012] 1 All ER (Comm) 381, QBD (Akenhead J)

  23 Oct 2012 [2012] EWCA Civ 1371; [2013] Bus LR 970; [2013] 1 All ER (Comm) 1074; [2013] 2 All ER 69; [2012] WLR (D) 284, CA

  Subsequent citations: 3.
  BUILDING — Contract — Adjudication
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  BUILDING — Contract — Adjudication — Adjudicator giving decision in construction dispute involving defendant — Court ruling adjudicator’s decision made in breach of natural justice and unenforceable — Adjudicator’s employer seeking payment of fees from defendant — Whether adjudicator’s fees payable for services preparatory to making of decision — Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, s 108 — Scheme for Construction Contracts (England and Wales) Regulations 1998, Sch

  2 Case(s) considered

  1 Statute considered

  1 Statutory Instrument considered
• Best Buy Co Inc v Worldwide Sales Corpn España SL

  08 Jul 2010 [2010] EWHC 1666 (Ch); [2010] Bus LR 1761; [2010] FSR 830; [2010] ETMR 974, Ch D (Floyd J)

  24 May 2011 [2011] EWCA Civ 618; [2011] Bus LR 1166; [2011] WLR (D) 173, CA

  01 Nov 2011 (appn dis) [2012] Bus LR 140, SC(E)

  Subsequent considerations : 2 positive; 1 neutral. Subsequent citations: 12.
  EVIDENCE — Privilege — “Without prejudice” communications

  TRADE MARK — Infringement — Groundless threat of proceedings
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  EVIDENCE — Privilege — “Without prejudice” communications — Circumstances in which without prejudice communications admissible

  TRADE MARK — Infringement — Groundless threat of proceedings — Statutory provision giving person aggrieved right of action — Claimant contending that letter from proprietor of Community trade mark constituting actionable threat — Proper approach to interpreting letter — Whether letter constituting “threat” — Whether threat to bring proceedings in United Kingdom — Whether directed to acts of infringement excluded by statutory provision — Whether letter protected by without prejudice rule — Whether claimants “person aggrieved” — Trade Marks Act 1994, s 21

  8 Case(s) considered

  2 Words & Phrases considered

  1 Statute considered

• Eli Lilly & Co v Human Genome Sciences Inc

  31 Jul 2008 [2008] EWHC 1903 (Pat); 105 BMLR 27; [2008] RPC 29, Ch D (Kitchin J)

  09 Feb 2010 [2010] EWCA Civ 33; 112 BMLR 161; [2010] RPC 14, CA

  02 Nov 2011 [2011] UKSC 51; [2012] Bus LR D37; [2012] 1 All ER 1154; [2012] RPC 6; [2011] WLR (D) 312; Case details, SC(E)

  Subsequent citations: 17.
  PATENT — Patentability — Biological material
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  PATENT — Patentability — Biological material — Identification of protein and encoding gene — Whether susceptible of industrial application — Approach of European Patent Office to be followed — Convention on the Grant of European Patents 2000, arts 52, 57

  2 Case(s) considered

  1 International Agreement considered

• Revenue and Customs Comrs v Football League Ltd (Football Association Premier League Ltd intervening)

  25 May 2012 [2012] EWHC 1372 (Ch); [2012] Bus LR 1539; [2012] WLR (D) 163, Ch D (David Richards J)

  Subsequent citations: 3.
  INSOLVENCY — Administration order — Distribution of assets
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  INSOLVENCY — Administration order — Distribution of assets — Football clubs playing in league each holding single share in defendant company — Defendant entering into agreements on behalf of clubs for broadcasting matches — Sums received under agreements initially paid into account maintained by league — Share holding in defendant entitling club to receive sums from account — Defendant’s articles providing that entitlement conditional on club completing fixture obligations for relevant season — Provision also for sums in account otherwise payable to club to be applied in discharging debts owed to football creditors — Club required to transfer share holding in defendant on going into administration — Defendant’s insolvency policy allowing transfer to be suspended providing football creditors paid in full — Revenue contending articles and insolvency policy breaching anti-deprivation and pari passu rules — Whether rules applying to companies in administration — Whether articles and insolvency policy invalid

  2 Case(s) considered