Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2012] All ER (D) 188 (May)
Neutral Citation: [2012] UKSC 19
Court: Supreme Court
Judge:

Lord Hope, Lord Walker, Lord Brown, Lord Clarke, Lord Dyson, Lord Sumption and Lord Reed SCJJ

Representation Graham Aaronson QC, Laurence Rabinowitz QC and David Cavender QC (instructed by Dorsey & Whitney (Europe) LLP) for the claimants.
  David Ewart QC, Rupert Baldry QC, Andrew Burrows QC, Kelyn Bacon and Sarah Ford (instructed by the Solicitor for the Revenue and Customs Commissioners) for the Revenue.
Judgment Dates: 23 May 2012

Catchwords

European Union - Freedom of establishment - Principle of non-discrimination - Corporation tax - Claimant companies belonging to groups with United Kingdom-resident parents and foreign subsidiaries - Different provisions applying to dividends received from non-resident companies as opposed to dividends received from UK resident companies - High Court ruling provisions infringing Community law - Revenue appealing on basis of issues relating to liability and remedy - Appeal being allowed in relation to issues of remedy - Parties appealing to Supreme Court - Whether Parliament could lawfully curtail, without notice, extended limitation period for mistake cause of action and cancel claims made using that cause of action for extended period - Whether restitution and damages remedies regarding corporation tax excluded by statutory provisions for recovery of overpaid tax - Whether extended limitation period for mistake cause of action applying to claim for Woolwich restitution remedy - Whether Woolwich restitution remedy applying only to tax demanded by Revenue and, if so, what amounting to demand - .

The Case

European Union Freedom of establishment. The Supreme Court, in allowing the test claimant companies' appeal in relation to various questions of law arising from the tax treatment of dividends received by UK-resident companies from non-resident subsidiaries, held, inter alia, that the restitution and damages remedies sought by the claimants had not been excluded by virtue of of the Taxes Management Act 1970. However, the question as to whether Community law required that every remedy recognised in domestic law be available to the claimants in order that they could choose the remedy that best suited their case for reimbursement was not acte clair and a reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union would be necessary.

Practice Areas

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.