header-logo header-logo

EU

12 June 2015
Issue: 7656 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Littlewoods Retail Ltd and others v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2015] EWCA Civ 515, [2015] All ER (D) 225 (May)

The claimants had been successful in their proceedings to recover in restitution the time value of the overpaid VAT. The defendant Revenue and Customs Commissioners appealed against the judges’ findings on liability and quantum. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the claimants’ restitutionary claims were excluded by ss 78 and 80 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994, which accordingly fell to be disapplied. Further, as the Revenue should not be treated as an involuntary recipient of overpayments, the benefit to the government from the overpayment of tax was correctly measured by the objective use value.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

FOIL—Bridget Tatham

FOIL—Bridget Tatham

Forum of Insurance Lawyers elects president for 2026

Gibson Dunn—Robbie Sinclair

Gibson Dunn—Robbie Sinclair

Partner joinslabour and employment practice in London

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

NEWS
Cryptocurrency is reshaping financial remedy cases, warns Robert Webster of Maguire Family Law in NLJ this week. Digital assets—concealable, volatile and hard to trace—are fuelling suspicions of hidden wealth, yet Form E still lacks a section for crypto-disclosure
NLJ columnist Stephen Gold surveys a flurry of procedural reforms in his latest 'Civil way' column
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
back-to-top-scroll