Investment Trust Companies v Revenue and Customs Commissioner

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeLord Reed,Lord Neuberger,Lord Mance,Lord Carnwath,Lord Hodge
Judgment Date11 April 2017
Neutral Citation[2017] UKSC 29
Date11 April 2017
CourtSupreme Court
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
96 cases
  • First Alternative Medical Staffing Ltd and another v Revenue and Customs Commissioners
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 4 March 2022
    ...C-160/13) [2015] BVC 18 and the decision of the Supreme Court in Investment R & C Commrs v Investment Trust Companies (in liquidation) [2017] BVC 16. The choice that the taxpayer faced in those cases was between (1) relying on an exemption provided by an EU Directive with direct effect in t......
  • Prudential Assurance Company Ltd v Revenue and Customs Commissioners
    • United Kingdom
    • Supreme Court
    • 25 July 2018
    ...has been a more detailed analysis of the “at the expense of” question, in Investment Trust Companies v Revenue and Customs Comrs [2017] UKSC 29; [2018] AC 275. It is necessary next to consider that “At the expense of” 68 Assuming for the present that an enrichment arises from having the op......
  • Mr Hitendrakumar Patel v Mr Michael John Parker
    • United Kingdom
    • Chancery Division
    • 31 July 2023
    ...Mr Patel to bring an unjust enrichment claim against the alleged recipients, applying Investment Trust Companies v. Revenue & Customs [2017] UKSC 29, in the judgment of Lord Reed at 74 Turning therefore to the new proposed heads of claim against SMC, ETT and ETH, Mr Parker is the sole dire......
  • Ahmad Hamad Algosaibi and Brothers Company v Saad Investments Company Ltd, Al Sanea and Others
    • Cayman Islands
    • Court of Appeal (Cayman Islands)
    • 21 December 2021
    ...[2014] 3 All E.R. 550; [2014] 1 CLC 316; [2014] C.P. Rep. 30, referred to. (40) Investment Trust Co. v. Revenue & Customs Commrs., [2017] UKSC 29; [2018] 1 A.C. 275; [2017] 2 W.L.R. 1200; [2017] 3 All E.R. 113; [2017] STC 985; [2017] STI 1041, referred to. (41) Jones v. MBNA Intl. B......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
14 books & journal articles
  • CONSTRUCTIVE TRUSTS AND DISCRETION IN AUSTRALIA: TAKING STOCK.
    • Australia
    • Melbourne University Law Review Vol. 44 No. 3, April 2021
    • 1 April 2021
    ...[2014] 1 Ch 1, 9 [13] (Lewison J), affd FHR European Ventures (n 41); Investment Trust Companies v Revenue and Customers Commissioners [2018] 1 AC 275, 304-5 [69] (Lord (43) See, eg, Peter Birks, Can Sense Be Made of the Remedial Constructive Trust? (The University of Western Australia Law ......
  • Rights of relief, subrogation and unjustified enrichment in Scots law
    • South Africa
    • Juta Acta Juridica No. , December 2019
    • 24 December 2019
    ...ch 6, section B; Go and Jones (n 20) chs 20 and 21. 143 Mitchell (n 97) 200.144 Cf Investment Trust Companies (in liquidation) v HMRC [2017] UKSC 29 at para 40, per Lord Reed: ‘the adoption of the concept of unjust enrichment in the modern law, as a unifying principle underlying a number o......
  • MANN V PATERSON CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD: THE INTERSECTION OF DEBT, DAMAGES AND QUANTUM MERUIT.
    • Australia
    • Melbourne University Law Review Vol. 44 No. 2, December 2020
    • 1 December 2020
    ...Financiere de la Cite v Parc (Battersea) Ltd [1999] 1 AC 221, 227 (Lord Steyn); Investment Trust Companies v Revenue and Customs Comrs [2018] AC 275, 290-1 [24], 294-6 [39]-[45] (Lord Reed); Samsoondar (n 10) [18][19] (Lord (168) See, eg, Peter G Watts '"Unjust Enrichment": The Potion that ......
  • UNJUST ENRICHMENT IN AUSTRALIA: WHAT IS(N'T) IT? IMPLICATIONS FOR LEGAL REASONING AND PRACTICE.
    • Australia
    • Melbourne University Law Review Vol. 43 No. 3, April 2020
    • 1 April 2020
    ...('Eastenders'). (25) See, eg, Lipkin Gorman (n 3) 578 (Lord Goff). (26) Investment Trust Companies v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2018] AC 275, 294 [39] (Lord Reed JSC for the Court) ('Investment (27) Third Restatement (n 9) [section] 1 cmt (b). (28) The distinction between legal rule......
  • Request a trial to view additional 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