CASE SUMMARIES: 20 January 1997
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.The following notes of judgments were prepared by the reporters of the All England Law Reports.
Land
Hypo-Mortgage Services Ltd v Robinson; CA (Nourse LJ, Sir John May) 7 Nov 1996.
Where a house was held on trust, the presence in the house of an infant beneficiary when it was mortgaged by a sole trustee did not support a claim that the mortgagee took subject to an overriding interest in favour of that beneficiary. Such a presence could not amount to "actual occupation" for the purpose of s 70(1)(g) of the Land Registration Act 1925 because an infant, even if not occupying in the shadow of a parent or other adult, lacked the legal capacity to consent to the transaction and to respond to relevant inquiries.
Jonathan H. Marks (Eversheds, Cardiff) for the plaintiff mortgagee; the defendant in person.
VAT
Customs & Excise Commrs v Bassimeh; CA (Evans, Henry, Aldous LJJ) 20 Nov 1996.
A penalty was assessed personally on a company director under s 14 of the Finance Act 1986 where the company's default over a four-year period was attributable to his dishonesty and the company had been assessed to a penalty under s 13 of the Finance Act 1985. The assessment and its notification to the director as a total sum not split into prescribed accounting periods were valid. All he needed to know was that the assessment on him, as opposed to the underlying assessment on the company, was properly made and notified to him. He did not need to know the details of the assessment on the company.
Rupert Baldry (Barry Philips & Co) for the director; Nigel Pleming QC (Customs & Excise).
Aspro Travel Ltd v Customs & Excise Commrs; QBD (Keene J) 22 Nov 1996.
Tour operators accounting for VAT under the Tour Operators' Margin Scheme, in Customs leaflet 709/5/88, were not permitted to elect retrospectively not to use the standard method of calculation provided by the scheme. Under the standard method, all supplies by third parties to the tour operator's customers were covered, wherever they were enjoyed but election might be made to account separately for supplies made to customers within the EC and those outside. Election to use the alternative method had to be made at the latest at the end of the taxpayer's financial year when adjusted accounts became due.
Roderick Cordara QC, Perdita Cargill-Thompson (Garrett & Co, Leeds) for Aspro; Kenneth Parker QC (Customs & Excise).
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments