Distance Selling in UK Law

Leading Cases
  • R (Khatun and Others) v Newham London Borough Council
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 24 Febrero 2004

    In my judgment CREEDNZ (via the decision in Findlay) does not only support the proposition that where a statute conferring discretionary power provides no lexicon of the matters to be treated as relevant by the decision-maker, then it is for the decision-maker and not the court to conclude what is relevant subject only to Wednesbury review.

  • Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Newbury
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 03 Abril 2003

    However, it was part of the Court's reasoning, at para 37, that article 8 is not applicable where the purchase and/or transportation of goods subject to duty is effected through an agent. The Advocate General had answered the first question in the negative and then answered the second a fortiori from the first. The object of the rules is to determine whether duty is payable in the country of origin or the country of destination.

    The involvement of people other than the purchaser in the intra-Community movement of goods is carefully regulated by other provisions in the Directive, including the provision for distance selling in article 10. If it had been intended that the purchaser could have been reflected by any natural or legal person to whom he had given a power of attorney in order to benefit from article 8 of the Directive, it would have said so.

  • Jersey Choice Ltd v HM Treasury
    • Chancery Division
    • 27 Noviembre 2020

    It seems to me that the central question as to whether s.199(3) of the 2012 Act brought articles 28, 30 or 34 of TFEU or principles of fiscal neutrality, equal treatment and proportionality into play at all is a nettle to be grasped at this strike out or summary judgment stage. If JCL is wrong on this central question, it will in truth have no real prospect overall of succeeding on its claim.

  • Coudrat v HM Revenue and Customs
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 26 Mayo 2005

    Although anything plainly inadmissible should be left out of account, we do not think that, at the stage of charging, it is necessary or appropriate to consider the possibility that evidence might be excluded at the trial after full legal argument or in the exercise of the judge's discretion. An officer cannot be expected to investigate the truth of every assertion made by the suspect in interview.

  • Ultraframe (UK) Ltd v Fielding
    • Chancery Division
    • 27 Julio 2005

See all results
Books & Journal Articles
See all results
Law Firm Commentaries
See all results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT