May 2019
« Jul    

Burton (Collector of Taxes) v Mellham Ltd; HL 15 Feb 2006

References: [2006] UKHL 6
Links: Bailii
Coram: Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood
The claimant sought interest on an overpayment of Advance Corporation Tax. The tax itself had been paid late, and the Collector claimed a set off.
Held: The claim to DTR could not be described as an attempt at self-help. It had a statutory claim to DTR which was eventually conceded in its entirety. The appeal succeded.
This case cites:

  • Appeal from – Mellham Ltd v Collector of Taxes CA (Bailii, [2003] EWCA Civ 173)
    Buxton LJ: ‘The issue therefore is one of simple statutory construction. Can the expression ‘payment’ when used in section 87 of the 1970 Act, or ‘pays’ when used both in section 246N(2) of the 1988 Act and section 239 of the 1988 Act, encompass a . .
  • Cited – Hanak v Green CA ([1958] 2 QB 9)
    A builder was sued for his failure to complete the works he had contracted for. The buider sought a set-off against that claim of three of his one claims. One, under the contract, was for losses from the defendant’s refusal to allow his workment . .
  • Cited – Aries Tanker Corp v Total Transport Ltd; The Aries HL ([1977] 1 WLR 185, [1977] 1 All ER 398)
    Claims for freight charges are an exception to the general rule that all claims between parties must be resolved in one action. A claim for freight cannot be a claim ‘on the same grounds’ as a counter-claim for loss or damage arising out of the . .
  • Cited – Safa Ltd v Banque Du Caire CA (Bailii, [2000] EWCA Civ 221, [2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 600)
    Safa claimed summary judgment as assignee of letters of credit opened by the bank. It was established by concession, and decision for the purposes of the summary judgment application, that even if payment was due under the letters of credit, the . .
  • Cited – Smith (Administrator of Cosslett (Contractors) Limited) v Bridgend County Borough Council; In re Cosslett (Contractors) Ltd HL (House of Lords, Bailii, [2001] UKHL 58, [2002] 1 AC 336, 80 Con LR 172, [2001] 3 WLR 1347, [2002] 1 All ER 292, [2002] 1 BCLC 77, [2002] TCLR 7, [2001] BCC 740, [2002] BLR 160, [2001] NPC 161)
    The standard building contract allowed a contractor to take plant and equipment from a site and sell it in payment of sums due under the contract, upon the other contractor becoming insolvent. It was said that this power amounted to a charge over . .

Leave a Reply