header-logo header-logo

22 July 2016
Issue: 7708 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

EU

Amoena (UK) Ltd v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2016] UKSC 41, [2016] All ER (D) 56 (Jul)

The Supreme Court, in allowing the taxpayer’s appeal in part, held, among other things, that, on a natural reading, a mastectomy bra imported by the taxpayer, designed to be worn with a silicone breast form by women who had undergone surgical removal of one or both breasts, was an “accessory”, which, by holding the breast form in place, enabled it to perform its function. The bra, therefore performed a particular service relative to the main function of the breast form and fell within the classification of “parts and accessories” in note 2(b) to Ch 90 of heading 9021 of the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union, such that it did not attract the payment of customs duty.

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

Clyde & Co—Suriya Ashok

Clyde & Co—Suriya Ashok

Clyde Co strengthens energy transition and construction offering with hire of Suriya Ashok

Jurit—Nicole Gallop Mildon

Jurit—Nicole Gallop Mildon

Jurit appoints rare dual-qualified lawyer to expand Anglo-French private wealth expertise

NEWS
The Supreme Court has settled a long-running dispute over part-time workers: unfavourable treatment need be a significant or effective cause, not the sole cause
Arbitration may be private, but its confidentiality is no impenetrable shield. Writing in NLJ this week, James Glaysher of Kingsley Napley examines when courts will permit arbitral material to surface in open litigation
The Financial Reporting Council’s revised Audit Enforcement Procedure will alter the balance of power in corporate investigations
A telecoms operator may be able to hold over under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, yet still be unable to secure a renewal: an outcome described as a legal ‘paradox’

Safety fears do not automatically justify shutting an interested person out of a statutory will application

back-to-top-scroll