header-logo header-logo

03 May 2013
Issue: 7558 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

VAT

Skatteverket v PFC Clinic AB C-91/12, [2013] All ER (D) 192 (Apr)
 

Article 132(1)(b) and (c) of Council Directive (EC) 2006/112 (the VAT Directive) should be interpreted as meaning that: supplies of services such as those at issue in the main proceedings, consisting of plastic surgery and other cosmetic treatments, fell within the concepts of “medical care” and “the provision of medical care” within the meaning of Art 132(1)(b) and (c) where those services were intended to diagnose, treat or cure diseases or health disorders or to protect, maintain or restore human health. The subjective understanding that the person who underwent plastic surgery or a cosmetic treatment had of it was not in itself decisive in order to determine whether that intervention had a therapeutic purpose. The fact that services such as those at issue in the main proceedings were supplied or undertaken by a licensed member of the medical profession or that the purpose of such services was determined by such a professional might influence the assessment of whether interventions such as those at issue in

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

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Regional law firm expands employment team with partner and senior associate hires

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Nottinghamtrusts, estates and tax team welcomes two senior associates

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The cab-rank rule remains a bulwark of the rule of law, yet lawyers are increasingly judged by their clients’ causes. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, warns that conflating representation with endorsement is a ‘clear and present danger’
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
back-to-top-scroll