Littlewoods Retail Ltd & Ors v HM Revenue & Customs
2014
CHANCERY DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
- MR JUSTICE HENDERSON
Areas of Law
- Tax Law
- Contract Law
- European Law
2014
CHANCERY DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Littlewoods pursued claims against HMRC for recovering VAT overpayments and claimed compound interest, challenging the adequacy of such repayments handled under sections 78 and 80 of VATA 1994. The court held that the overpayments were not due under EU law and that the simple interest paid did not offer adequate indemnity, necessitating the disapplication of these sections to allow claimants pursuing restitution under both Woolwich and mistake-based claims. The case revolved around issues fundamental to Tax Law and the alignment of UK statutes with EU principles of effectiveness and equivalence.
Judgment
Mr Justice Henderson:
Index
Topic Para I. Introduction 1-15 II. The factual and procedural background 16-65 (1) Witnesses of fact 16-19 (2) The claimants and the relevant VAT groups 20-23 (3) The underlying facts 24-30 (4) The agreed VAT treatment of agents’ commission until 1997 31-35 (5) The disputes and the procedural history from 1997 onwards 36-62 (6) The corporation tax assessments 63-65 III. The decisions in Littlewoods (CA) and Grattan (ECJ ) 66-113 (1) Littlewoods (CA) 67-91 (2) Grattan (ECJ) 92-113 IV. Are the Woolwich claims and/or the mistake-based claims, as a matter of English law, and without reference to EU law, excluded by sections 78 and 80 of VATA 1994? 114-115 V. The underlying tax issue: as a matter of EU law, were the VAT payments in question due? 116-149 VI. Estoppel and abuse of process 150-252 (1) Introduction 150-151 (2) Issue estoppel 152-228 (a) General requirements 152-156 (b) The Arnold exception 157-168 (c) The application of issue estoppel to tax cases 169-207 (d) The technical issues 208-228 (i) The same issue 208-213 (ii) Privity 214-228 (3) Contractual estoppel: the 2008 section 85 Agreement 229-242 (4) Abuse of process 243-251 (5) Summary of conclusions 252 VII. The adequate indemnity issue 253-310 (1) Introduction 253-260
Index
Topic Para (2) British Sugar and Irimie 261-270 (3) Adequate indemnity 271-302 (4) Has the payment of simple interest provided Littlewoods with an adequate indemnity for the loss of use value of the overpaid VAT? 303-310 VIII. Conforming construction or disapplication? 311-341 (1) Introduction 311-316 (2) Conforming construction 317-327 (3) Disapplication 328-341 IX. Change of position and exhaustion of benefits 342-344 X. What is the measure of the claimants’ recovery ? 345-347 XI. Quantum 348-448 (1) The right approach to quantification of Littlewoods’ claims 348-375 (2) The expert evidence of Professor Kay and Dr Richardson 376-407 (a) Government borrowing costs 376 (b) The time value of money 377-384 (c) The actual benefit to the Government from the use of the money 385-407 (3) The views of Vos J in Littlewoods (No. 1) 408-412 (4) Conclusions on the measure of benefit 413-417 (5) Is the Revenue’s approach to quantification inconsistent with EU law? 418-425 (6) Should the saving of additional corporation tax be taken into account under English law, and (if so) how should it be computed? 426-448 (a) The position under English law 426-434 (b) Quantification 435-448 XII. Final concl