Lewison J said: ‘The court is often called upon to decide whether a written contract falls within a particular legal description. In so doing the court will identify the rights and obligations of the parties as a matter of construction of the written agreement; but it will then go on to consider whether those obligations fall within the relevant legal description. Thus the question may be whether those rights and obligations are properly characterised as a licence or tenancy (as in Street v Mountford [1985] AC 809); or as a fixed or floating charge (as in Agnew v IRC [2001] 2 AC 710), or as a consumer hire agreement (as in TRM Copy Centres (UK) Ltd v Lanwall Services Ltd [2009] 1 WLR 1375). In all these cases the starting point is to identify the legal rights and obligations of the parties as a matter of contract before going on to classify them.’
Lewison J
[2009] EWHC 2694 (Ch), [2009] BVC 924, [2010] STC 214, [2009] NPC 121
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
At VDT – A1 Lofts Ltd and A1 Loft Conversions Ltd v Revenue and Customs VDT 3-Dec-2008
FTTx VALUE ADDED TAX – Supply of services – Loft conversions – Taxpayer agreed with contractors they would be paid by clients out of clients’ accounts – Whether taxpayer project manager on clients’ behalf – . .
Cited by:
Cited – Revenue and Customs v Secret Hotels2 Ltd SC 5-Mar-2014
The Court was asked as to: ‘the liability for Value Added Tax of a company which markets and arranges holiday accommodation through an on-line website. The outcome turns on the appropriate characterisation of the relationship between the company, . .
Cited – Uber Bv and Others v Aslam and Others CA 19-Dec-2018
Uber drivers are workers
The claimant Uber drivers sought the status of workers, allowing them to claim the associated statutory employment benefits. The company now appealed from a finding that they were workers.
Held: The appeal failed (Underhill LJ dissenting) The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
VAT, Construction
Updated: 20 December 2021; Ref: scu.377352