Investment Trust Companies v Revenue and Customs: CA 12 Feb 2015

The claimants having sought repayment of overpaid VAT, they now complained of sums deducted by the Revenue.
Held: The Court allowed the Lead Claimants’ appeal, to the extent of the notional pounds 75 paid in respect of dead periods, and allowed the Commissioners’ appeal in respect of the notional pounds 25.
In particular: 1. That the judge had been right to conclude that the Lead Claimants had a direct cause of action in unjust enrichment against the Commissioners for VAT paid under a mistake of law.
2. That he had been wrong to treat this cause of action as excluded by section 80(7).
3. That he had been wrong to conclude that the notional pounds 25 retained by the Managers represented the discharge of any subsisting obligation to refund that amount on the part of the Commissioners, and that, accordingly, the Commissioners could not have been enriched by more than the notional pounds 75 for any of the accounting periods in question. Any domestic claim in unjust enrichment for the notional pounds 25 lay against the Managers alone.
4. That the Lead Claimants had no direct claim against the Commissioners for the notional pounds 25 under EU law, given the claim they had in that amount against the Managers.
Moore-Bick, Patten, Beatson LJJ
[2015] EWCA Civ 82, [2015] WLR(D) 73, [2015] BVC 10, [2015] STI 519, [2015] STC 1280
Bailii, WLRD, WLRD
England and Wales
CitedLipkin Gorman (a Firm) v Karpnale Ltd HL 6-Jun-1991
The plaintiff firm of solicitors sought to recover money which had been stolen from them by a partner, and then gambled away with the defendant. He had purchased their gaming chips, and the plaintiff argued that these, being gambling debts, were . .
Main JudgmentInvestment Trust Companies v HM Revenue and Customs ChD 2-Mar-2012
The claimant had properly accounted for VAT on its transactions for many years, but a decision of the European court had latterly ruled that the services were exempt. The claimant sought restitution from HMRC, who responded by arguing that . .
AT ChD (2)Investment Trust Companies v Revenue and Customs ChD 26-Mar-2013
The claimant investment Trust companies sought repayment of taxes paid in error by way of restitution.
Held: The range of the the law of restitution to recover any tax unlawfully exacted was to be be restricted to those situations where the . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromRevenue and Customs v The Investment Trust Companies SC 11-Apr-2017
Certain investment trust companies (ITCs) sought refunds of VAT paid on the supply of investment management services. EU law however clarified that they were not due. Refunds were restricted by the Commissioners both as to the amounts and limitation . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 March 2021; Ref: scu.542510