Robert Frederick Soul (Appellant) Commissioners of Inland Revenue (Respondents) Robert Frederick Soul (Appellant) Vioiette Marie Caillebotte (Respondent)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE WILLMER,LORD JUSTICE HARMAN,LORD JUSTICE DIPLOCK |
| Judgment Date | 12 December 1966 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1966] EWCA Civ J1212-2 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
| Docket Number | 1964. No. 4 |
| Date | 12 December 1966 |
[1966] EWCA Civ J1212-2
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
Civil Division.
Appeal from Order of Cross J. dated 23rd March, 1964.
Revenue Paper
Revised
Lord Justice Willmer
Lord Justice Harman and
Lord Justice Diplock.
(H. M. Inspector of Taxes)
THE APPELLANT (Mr R. F. Soul) appeared in person.
Mr J. RAYMOND PHILLIPS and Mr IAN EDWARDS-JONES (instructed by The Solicitor of Inland Revenue) appeared on behalf of the Respondents.
Mr S. DAVID GRAHAM (instructed by Messrs Goldingham, Wellington & Co.) appeared on behalf of the Trustee in Bankruptcy.
I have asked Lord Justice Harman to deliver the first judgment.
These are two applications by the Crown to dismiss or strike out two appeals. The appeals were originated by Mr Soul, one against the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, and the other against one of H. M. Inspectors of Taxes. One concerns surtax and the other concerns income tax. Mr Soul wants them to remain on the file. The Crown wants them dismissedand submits that they should be dismissed for this very short reason, that Mr Soul, having been adjudicated bankrupt, now has no interest left in the matter at all; that it has passed to his trustee in bankruptcy; and his trustee tells us that, having considered the appeals, he does not think they are worth pursuing He is now unwilling to be a party to the appeals, or to prosecute them. In those circumstances I think that the court is left with no option but to dismiss the appeals because Mr Soul has now no interest in the matter at all, having been adjudicated bankrupt.
But that there are unsatisfactory matters behind this is not to be denied. There appear to be two contrary decisions, one that Mr Soul is the beneficial owner of the properties concerned and the other that he is not, and that, in view of some observations that I made on a previous occasion, should be cleared up. But we cannot deal with that on these appeals. There is an action pending. One of the nominees, or whatever you like to call them, has brought an action against Mr Soul claiming that he is the beneficial owner, and in such an action the whole matter could be determined. But, of course, are not in a position to order the plaintiff...
To continue reading
Request your trial