Vandervell v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1967] 2 AC 291, House of Lords

Author(s):  
Derek Whayman

Essential Cases: Equity & Trusts provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Vandervell v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1967] 2 AC 291, House of Lords. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Derek Whayman.

Author(s):  
Derek Whayman

Essential Cases: Equity & Trusts provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Vandervell v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1967] 2 AC 291, House of Lords. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Derek Whayman.


Author(s):  
Derek Whayman

Essential Cases: Equity & Trusts provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Vandervell v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1967] 2 AC 291, House of Lords. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Derek Whayman.


Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in R v Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte National Federation of the Self Employed and Small Businesses Ltd [1982] AC 617, House of Lords (also known as the Fleet Street Casuals case). This case concerns when and how an assessment of an applicant’s standing (or interest, locus standi) should be made for the purposes of determining whether they may bring a judicial review. Lord Diplock’s judgment provided a liberal approach to the assessment of standing as compared with the approaches offered by his fellow judges. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.


Author(s):  
Thomas Webb

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in R v Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte National Federation of the Self Employed and Small Businesses Ltd [1982] AC 617, House of Lords (also known as Fleet Street Casuals). The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.


Legal Studies ◽  
1994 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 206-225 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ian Loveland

The House of Lords’ decision in Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers Ltd has been widely welcomed as a long overdue development in the common law’s treatment of free speech issues. Eric Barendt interprets the judgment as a judicial recognition of free speech as a ‘quasi-constitutional’ right. In a more exoteric vein, a major article in the Observer bracketed the case with Factortame, Pepper v Hart, and Woolwich Building Society v Inland Revenue in suggesting that an increasingly liberal-minded judiciary was fashioning a ‘silent revolution’ against orthodox principles of Parliamentary Sovereignty.


1959 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 86-98
Author(s):  
J. A. Jolowicz

Although the whole of a man's rights and interests, which include his rights in his own personal safety, may not be readily divisible between his income and his capital assets, it is axiomatic that all those rights and interests are either subject to tax or not. It follows, therefore, that in an action for damages a claim may be made not only for loss of or damage to some non-taxable interest, but also, and perhaps exclusively, for a reduction in the plaintiff's taxable income caused by the wrongful act of the defendant. In such cases the plaintiff's liability to tax may become a relevant consideration, either as between himself and the Commissioners of Inland Revenue or as between himself and the defendant. It is the purpose of this article to consider some aspects of the inter-relationship of damages and tax, with particular reference to the decision of the House of Lords in British Transport Commission v. Gourley and the subsequent Report of the Law Reform Committee.


Author(s):  
Michael Ashdown

In 1958 the trustees of a settlement, established in 1947 by Sir William Bass for the benefit of Captain Hastings-Bass and his issue, exercised the statutory power of advancement to transfer £50 000 from that settlement to the trustees of another trust fund created in 1957 for the benefit of Captain Hastings-Bass’s son, William, and William’s issue. What the trustees could not then foresee was that the later decision of the House of Lords in Re Pilkington’s Will Trusts would render some of the 1957 trusts perpetuitous and void. The Commissioners of Inland Revenue argued that this oversight rendered the purported exercise of the power of advancement void, and that in consequence they were entitled to claim estate duty on the £50 000 when Captain Hastings-Bass died in 1964. In 1974 the Court of Appeal rejected this argument, holding that the 1957 trusts created a life interest vested in William Hastings-Bass, and that this life interest survived even though the remoter interests were void for perpetuity.


Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in R v Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte National Federation of the Self Employed and Small Businesses Ltd [1982] AC 617, House of Lords (also known as Fleet Street Casuals). This case concerns when and how an assessment of an applicant’s standing (or interest, locus standi) should be made for the purposes of determining whether they may bring a judicial review. Lord Diplock’s judgment provided a liberal approach to the assessment of standing as compared with the approaches offered by his fellow judges. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.


Legal Studies ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 586-609
Author(s):  
Man Yip

In Sempra Metals Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners, the House of Lords, by a majority, recognised the right to recover compound interest for the ‘use value of money’, an independent benefit from the principal sum. This right is based in the principle of unjust enrichment. Nevertheless, the House of Lords could not agree on the proper understanding of ‘use value of money’ and left many important questions unaddressed which are crucial for paving the way forward for a claim for the ‘use value of money’. This paper will meet the following challenges – to justify the majority's position in Sempra Metals in recognising a right to compound interest for the ‘use value of money’; deal with the theoretical basis of ‘use value of money’; and recommend a model as the way forward for this newly recognised claim.


Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in R v Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte National Federation of the Self Employed and Small Businesses Ltd [1982] AC 617, House of Lords (also known as Fleet Street Casuals). This case concerns when and how an assessment of whether an applicant seeking to bring a judicial review should occur. Lord Diplock’s judgment provided a liberal approach to the assessment of standing. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document