Mitchell and Edon v Ross

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeViscount Simonds,Lord Radcliffe,Lord Tucker,Lord Cohen,Lord Guest
Judgment Date06 July 1961
Judgment citation (vLex)[1961] UKHL J0706-1
Date06 July 1961
CourtHouse of Lords
Mitchell and Another (Inspectors of Taxes)
and
Ross, et è Contra.
Mitchell and Another (Inspectors of Taxes)
and
Hirtenstein, et è Contra.
Mitchell and Another (Inspectors of Taxes)
and
Marshall, et è Contra.
Taylor-Gooby (Inspector of Taxes)
and
Tarnesby, et è Contra.
Taylor-Gooby and Another (Inspectors of Taxes)
and
Drew, et è Contra

[1961] UKHL J0706-1

Viscount Simonds

Lord Radcliffe

Lord Tucker

Lord Cohen

Lord Guest

House of Lords

Upon Report from the Appellate Committee, to whom was referred the Cause Mitchell and another (Inspectors of Taxes) against Ross, et è contra, Mitchell and another (Inspectors of Taxes) against Hirtenstein, et è contra, Mitchell and another (Inspectors of Taxes) against Marshall, et è contra, Taylor-Gooby (Inspector of Taxes) against Tarnesby, et è contra, Taylor-Gooby and another (Inspectors of Taxes) against Drew, et è contra (Consolidated Appeals), that the Committee had heard Counsel, as well on Thursday the 11th, as on Monday the 15th, days of May last, upon the Petition and Appeal of Adam Hope Mitchell, of Birmingham 16th District, and James Edon, of Coventry 3d District (two of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Taxes), praying, That the matter of the Order set forth in the Schedule thereto, namely, an Order of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal of the 24th of March 1960, so far as therein stated to be appealed against, might be reviewed before Her Majesty the Queen, in Her Court of Parliament, and that the said Order, so far as aforesaid, might be reversed, varied or altered, or that the Petitioners might have such other relief in the premises as to Her Majesty the Queen, in Her Court of Parliament, might seem meet; as also upon the Petition and Appeal of Adam Hope Mitchell, of Birmingham 16th District, and Edwin Dennis Haddock, of Dudley 1st District (two of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Taxes), praying, That the matter of the Order set forth in the Schedule thereto, namely, an Order of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal of the 24th of March 1960, so far as therein stated to be appealed against, might be reviewed before Her Majesty the Queen, in Her Court of Parliament, and that the said Order, so far as aforesaid, might be reversed, varied or altered, or that the Petitioners might have such other relief in the premises as to Her Majesty the Queen, in Her Court of Parliament, might seem meet; as also upon the Petition and Appeal of Adam Hope Mitchell, of Birmingham 16th District, and Roy Gareth Hughesdon Mellersh, of Walsall 2d District (two of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Taxes), praying, That the matter of the Order set forth in the Schedule thereto, namely, an Order of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal of the 24th of March 1960, so far as therein stated to be appealed against, might be reviewed before Her Majesty the Queen, in Her Court of Parliament, and that the said Order, so far as aforesaid, might be reversed, varied or altered, or that the Petitioners might have such other relief in the premises as to Her Majesty the Queen, in Her Court of Parliament, might seem meet; as also upon the Petition and Appeal of Frederick John Taylor-Gooby, of City 23d District (one of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Taxes), praying, That the matter of the Order set forth in the Schedule thereto, namely, an Order of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal of the 24th of March 1960, so far as therein stated to be appealed against, might be reviewed before Her Majesty the Queen, in Her Court of Parliament, and that the said Order, so far as aforesaid, might be reversed, varied or altered, or that the Petitioner might have such other relief in the premises as to Her Majesty the Queen, in Her Court of Parliament, might seem meet; as also upon the Petition and Appeal of Frederick John Taylor-Gooby, of City 23d District, and Kenneth Arthur Job, of Somerset House, London (two of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Taxes), praying, That the matter of the Order set forth in the Schedule thereto, namely, an Order of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal of the 24th of March 1960, so far as therein stated to be appealed against, might be reviewed before Her Majesty the Queen, in Her Court of Parliament, and that the said Order, so far as aforesaid, might be reversed, varied or altered, or that the Petitioners might have such other relief in the premises as to Her Majesty the Queen, in Her Court of Parliament, might seem meet (which said Appeals were, by an Order of this House of the 28th day of June 1960, ordered to be consolidated); as also upon the Petition and Cross Appeal of Harold Leslie Ross, of 15 Moultrie Road, Rugby, in the County of Warwick, praying, That the matter of the Order set forth in the Schedule thereto, namely, an Order of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal of the 24th of March 1960, so far as therein stated to be appealed against, might be reviewed before Her Majesty the Queen, in Her Court of Parliament, and that the said Order, so far as aforesaid, might be reversed, varied or altered, or that the Petitioner might have such other relief in the premises as to Her Majesty the Queen, in Her Court of Parliament, might seem meet; as also upon the Petition and Cross Appeal of Arnost Hirtenstein, of 49 Upland Road, Birmingham, in the County of Warwick, praying, That the matter of the Order set forth in the Schedule thereto, namely, an Order of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal of the 24th of March 1960, so far as therein stated to be appealed against, might be reviewed before Her Majesty the Queen, in Her Court of Parliament, and that the said Order, so far as aforesaid, might be reversed, varied or altered, or that the Petitioner might have such other relief in the premises as to Her Majesty the Queen, in Her Court of Parliament, might seem meet; as also upon the Petition and Cross Appeal of Alfred Gordon Marshall, of Wulfrun Cottage, Albert Road, Wolverhampton, in the County of Stafford, praying, That the matter of the Order set forth in the Schedule thereto, namely, an Order of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal of the 24th of March 1960, so far as therein stated to be appealed against, might be reviewed before Her Majesty the Queen, in Her Court of Parliament, and that the said Order, so far as aforesaid, might be reversed, varied or altered, or that the Petitioner might have such other relief in the premises as to Her Majesty the Queen, in Her Court of Parliament, might seem meet; as also upon the Petition and Cross Appeal of Herman Peter Tarnesby, of 127 Harley Street, London, W.1, praying, That the matter of the Order set forth in the Schedule thereto, namely, an Order of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal of the 24th of March 1960, so far as therein stated to be appealed against, might be reviewed before Her Majesty the Queen, in Her Court of Parliament, and that the said Order, so far as aforesaid, might be reversed, varied or altered, or that the Petitioner might have such other relief in the premises as to Her Majesty the Queen, in Her Court of Parliament, might seem meet; as also upon the Petition and Cross Appeal of Charles Edwin Drew, of Brook House, Hyacinth Road, London, S.W.15, praying, That the matter of the Order set forth in the Schedule thereto, namely, an Order of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal of the 24th of March 1960, so far as therein stated to be appealed against, might be reviewed before Her Majesty the Queen, in Her Court of Parliament, and that the said Order, so far as aforesaid, might be reversed, varied or altered, or that the Petitioner might have such other relief in the premises as to Her Majesty the Queen, in Her Court of Parliament, might seem meet (which said Cross Appeals were, by an Order of this House of the 11th day of October last, ordered to be consolidated); as also upon the Case of Harold Leslie Ross, Arnost Hirtenstein, Alfred Gordon Marshall, Herman Peter Tarnesby and Charles Edwin Drew; and also upon the Case of Adam Hope Mitchell and James Edon (two of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Taxes), the said Adam Hope Mitchell and Edwin Dennis Haddock (two of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Taxes), the said Adam Hope Mitchell and Roy Gareth Hughesdon Mellersh (two of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Taxes), Frederick John Taylor-Gooby (one of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Taxes) and the said Frederick John Taylor-Gooby and Kenneth Arthur Job (two of Her Majestys' Inspectors of Taxes), lodged in the said Original and Cross Appeals; and due consideration had this day of what was offered on either side in this Cause:

It is Ordered and Adjudged, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in the Court of Parliament of Her Majesty the Queen assembled, That the said Orders of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal, of the 24th day of March 1960, so far as stated to be appealed against in the said Original Appeals, be, and the same are hereby, Reversed, and that the Orders of the Honourable Mr. Justice Upjohn, of the 21st day of July 1959, thereby set aside, be, and the same are hereby, Restored, and that the said Petitions and Cross Appeals be, and the same are hereby, Dismissed this House: And it is further Ordered, That the said Respondents in the Original Appeals do pay, or cause to be paid, to the said Appellants in the Original Appeals the Costs incurred by them in the Court of Appeal, and also the Costs incurred by them in respect of the said Original and Cross Appeals to this House, the amount of such last-mentioned Costs to be certified by the Clerk of the Parliaments: And it is also further Ordered, That the Cause be, and the same is hereby, remitted back to the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice, to do therein as shall be just and consistent with this Judgment.

Viscount Simonds

My Lords,

1

These consolidated appeals and cross-appeals raise a question of general importance to medical specialists who hold appointments as part-time consultants under the National Health Service and also have private patients. The appeals relate to assessments...

To continue reading

Request your trial
30 cases
  • Cooke v Blacklaws
    • United Kingdom
    • Chancery Division
    • October 15, 1984
    ...the relationship between employer and employee and what the dentist's contractual and other legal rights are.Mitchell & Edon v. Ross TAX(1962) 40 T.C. 11 concerned a number of taxpayers who were consultants with regional hospital boards and rendered medical services under the NHS for fees. ......
  • Commissioners of Inland Revenue v Brander & Cruickshank
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Session (Inner House - First Division)
    • December 8, 1970
    ...Co. Ltd. v. Clayson TAXWLR36 T.C. 545; [1956] 1 W.L.R. 325Blackburn v. Close Bros. Ltd. TAX(1960) 39 T.C. 164Mitchell v. Ross TAXELR40 T.C. 11; [1962] A.C. 813;Ellis v. Lucas TAXELR43 T.C. 276; [1967] Ch. 858 IX. We, the Commissioners who heard the appeal, after considering the evidence add......
  • Charles Tyrwhitt LLP v The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs [2021] UKUT 0165 (TCC)
    • United Kingdom
    • Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber)
    • Invalid date
    ...in s 9 ITEPA. We now turn to the authorities to which we were referred on this question. 40. We start with Mitchell and Edon v Ross [1962] AC 813. That case involved a number of National Health consultants who had both NHS and private income. The Special Commissioners decided that the incom......
  • Commissioners of Inland Revenue v Brander & Cruickshank
    • United Kingdom
    • House of Lords
    • December 8, 1970
    ...be assessed to tax under Sched. D or Sched. E— Held (aff. judgment of the First Division) (I),followingMitchell and Edon v. RossELR, [1962] A.C. 813, that the firm's appointments as registrars were appointments to offices within the meaning of sec. 37 of the 1960 Act ; and (2) that the reg......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • The Meaning of Income
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Income Tax Law. Second Edition Part II
    • June 16, 2012
    ...c 122. 18 Income and Corporation Taxes Act, 1970 (UK), c 10, repealed 1992. 19 Ibid , s 1. As Lord Radcliffe said in Mitchell v Ross , [1961] 3 All ER 49 at 55, 40 Tax Cas 11: Before you can assess a prof‌it to tax you must be sure that you have properly identif‌ied its source or other desc......

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