Click the case name for better results:

Acts

1267 – 1278 – 1285 – 1297 – 1361 – 1449 – 1491 – 1533 – 1677 – 1688 – 1689 – 1700 – 1706 – 1710 – 1730 – 1737 – 1738 – 1751 – 1774 – 1792 – 1793 – 1804 – 1814 – 1819 – 1824 – 1828 – 1831 – 1832 … Continue reading Acts

Revenue and Customs v Joint Administrators of Lehman Brothers International (Europe): SC 13 Mar 2019

The Court was asked whether interest payable under rule 14.23(7) of the Insolvency Rules 2016 is ‘yearly interest’ within the meaning of section 874 of the Income Tax Act 2007. If so, the administrators must deduct income tax before paying interest to creditors. Lehmann Brothers had become insolvent, but in the administration a substantial surplus … Continue reading Revenue and Customs v Joint Administrators of Lehman Brothers International (Europe): SC 13 Mar 2019

Lomas and Others v HM Revenue and Customs: ChD 11 Oct 2016

Receivers’ payment of statutory interest gross Substantial sums were to be repaid to creditors after the administration of Lehman Brothers produced a substantial surplus. The sums were to carry interest and the court now considered whether the sums due amounted to ‘yearly interest’ under section 874. Held: The statutory interest to be paid under Rule … Continue reading Lomas and Others v HM Revenue and Customs: ChD 11 Oct 2016

Ardmore Construction Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 13 May 2014

FTTTx Income Tax – Interest payments made by United Kingdom company to offshore trusts/companies – Whether interest ‘arising in the United Kingdom’ within the meaning of s 874 Income Tax Act 2007 – Whether unpublished decision of Special Commissioner should be cited – Effect of citation of unpublished decision of Special Commissioner on subsequent decision … Continue reading Ardmore Construction Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 13 May 2014

Revenue and Customs v Lomas and Others (Administrators of Lehman Brothers International (Europe)): CA 19 Dec 2017

Lady Justice Gloster Vice-President of the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, Lord Justice Patten, and Lord Justice David Richards [2017] EWCA Civ 2124, [2018] Bus LR 730, [2018] STI 259, [2018] STC 385, [2018] BTC 5 Bailii England and Wales Citing: Appeal from – Lomas and Others v HM Revenue and Customs ChD 11-Oct-2016 Receivers’ … Continue reading Revenue and Customs v Lomas and Others (Administrators of Lehman Brothers International (Europe)): CA 19 Dec 2017

Target Holdings Ltd v Redferns (A Firm) and Another: HL 21 Jul 1995

The defendant solicitors had acted for a purchaser, Crowngate, which had agreed to buy a property from a company called Mirage for andpound;775,000. Crowngate had arranged however that the property would first be passed through a chain of two intermediate purchaser companies, Panther and Kohli, with Kohli then selling to Crowngate at a stated price … Continue reading Target Holdings Ltd v Redferns (A Firm) and Another: HL 21 Jul 1995

Jefford v Gee: CA 4 Mar 1970

The courts of Scotland followed the civil law in the award of interest on damages. The court gave examples of the way in which they apply the ex mora rule when calculating the interest payable in a judgment. If money was wrongfully withheld, then the courts had power to award interest during the period of … Continue reading Jefford v Gee: CA 4 Mar 1970

LB Holdings Intermediate 2 Ltd, The Joint Administrators of v Lehman Brothers International (Europe), The Joint Administrators of and Others: SC 17 May 2017

In the course of the insolvent administration of the bank, substantial additional sums were received. Parties appealed against some orders made on the application to court for directions as to what was to be done with the surplus. Held: The Court considered the so called waterfall of distributions made on liquidation which proved to be … Continue reading LB Holdings Intermediate 2 Ltd, The Joint Administrators of v Lehman Brothers International (Europe), The Joint Administrators of and Others: SC 17 May 2017

Mayor and Others of Gateshead v Lumsden: CA 10 Mar 1914

The plaintiffs, as the urban authority of a borough, had under s. 150 of the Public Health Act, 1875, and the Gateshead Improvement Act 1867, some years before action brought paved and made up certain streets, and had from time to time apportioned the expenses thereof among the owners of the premises fronting thereon. The … Continue reading Mayor and Others of Gateshead v Lumsden: CA 10 Mar 1914

In Re T Cooper: CA 2 Jun 1911

(1911) 2 KB 550, [1911] UKLawRpKQB 118 Commolii England and Wales Cited by: Cited – Revenue and Customs v Joint Administrators of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) SC 13-Mar-2019 The Court was asked whether interest payable under rule 14.23(7) of the Insolvency Rules 2016 is ‘yearly interest’ within the meaning of section 874 of the Income … Continue reading In Re T Cooper: CA 2 Jun 1911

Sadler v the South Staffordshire and Birmingham District Steam Tramways Co: CA 26 Jun 1889

Interest upon a loan by a banker to a customer for a period of less than a year is not within the words ‘ any yearly interest of money or any annuity or other annual payment ‘ in 16 and 17 Viet. c. 34, s. 40, and therefore the customer is not entitled to deduct … Continue reading Sadler v the South Staffordshire and Birmingham District Steam Tramways Co: CA 26 Jun 1889

Kay and Another v London Borough of Lambeth and others; Leeds City Council v Price and others and others: HL 8 Mar 2006

In each case the local authority sought to recover possession of its own land. In the Lambeth case, they asserted this right as against an overstaying former tenant, and in the Leeds case as against gypsies. In each case the occupiers said that the recovery of possession interfered with their right respect for their family … Continue reading Kay and Another v London Borough of Lambeth and others; Leeds City Council v Price and others and others: HL 8 Mar 2006

Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Lincoln City Council etc: HL 29 Jul 1998

Right of Recovery of Money Paid under Mistake Kleinwort Benson had made payments to a local authority under swap agreements which were thought to be legally enforceable when made. Subsequently, a decision of the House of Lords, (Hazell v. Hammersmith and Fulham) established that such swap agreements were unlawful. Kleinwort Benson then sought restitution of … Continue reading Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Lincoln City Council etc: HL 29 Jul 1998