Restitution claims for failure to pay for aftercare services – Community Care Blog

Posted December 21st, 2017 in appeals, mental health, news, repayment, restitution, social services by tracey

‘If an individual has in years past paid him or herself for mental health aftercare services, which should have been paid for by public bodies, does that person have a valid restitution claim to be refunded the monies spent? The Court of Appeal in Richards v Worcestershire County Council [2017] EWCA Civ 1998 has upheld the decision of Newey J at first instance, that a claimant can bring a private law action against public authorities under Part 7 of the CPR, when it is alleged that:
· the public authority was responsible for providing mental health aftercare services to the claimant pursuant to section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983;
· aftercare services were received by the claimant; and
· those services were paid for by the claimant themselves.
Such a claim would be brought in restitution, on the basis that the payments made by the claimant served to relieve the public authority of liabilities which they ought to have been bearing under section 117.’

Full Story

Community Care Blog, 18th December 2017

Source: communitycare11kbw.com

Investment Trust Companies v Revenue and Customs Comrs – WLR Daily

Posted April 26th, 2017 in appeals, EC law, HM Revenue & Customs, law reports, restitution, Supreme Court, VAT by sally

Investment Trust Companies v Revenue and Customs Comrs [2017] UKSC 29

‘The claimants were “closed-ended” investment funds constituted as limited companies. Between 1992 and 2002 they received supplies of services from investment managers rendered pursuant to agreements which provided for the managers to be remunerated by the payment of fees plus VAT “if applicable”. Under the legislation then in force such services did not qualify for exemption and the managers charged VAT at the standard rate. The managers made periodic VAT returns which accounted for the VAT charged as output tax, reclaimed input tax and paid the revenue the net difference. Following a decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union it transpired that the supplies of the investment management services should have been exempt from VAT. Accordingly, the managers made claims to the revenue under section 80 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 for repayment of sums accounted for and paid by them in error. The revenue met those claims but, in accordance with the statutory provisions, limited repayments to the net amounts which the managers had paid and did not include any amounts relating to periods which were time-barred. The managers forwarded the reimbursements to the claimants as required under section 80 but since they were insufficient to meet the full amount of VAT which had been mistakenly paid by them the claimants brought proceedings against the revenue on grounds of unjust enrichment and breach of European Union law. The judge found that the revenue had been enriched by the full amount of VAT paid by the claimants to the managers; that the claimants had no cause of action at common law because the statutory scheme protected the revenue from any liability to refund VAT except as provided for under section 80 of the 1994 Act, but that, since, within the limitation period, European Union law required that exclusion to be disapplied, the claimants were entitled to repayment of the full amount of VAT paid by the claimants within that period. The claim in relation to the time-barred periods was therefore dismissed. On appeal by both parties the Court of Appeal concluded that the statutory scheme did not exclude a common law claim but that, since the revenue had only received payment of output tax net of input tax from the managers, it had not been unjustly enriched over the periods in which a refund had been paid to the managers, although a similar repayment was payable to cover the time-barred periods.’

WLR Daily, 11th April 2017

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

No direct right in restitution against HMRC for investment trust companies, rules Supreme Court – OUT-LAW.com

Posted April 25th, 2017 in financial regulation, HM Revenue & Customs, news, restitution by sally

‘A group of investment trust companies (ITCs) cannot make out an ‘unjust enrichment’ claim against HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) in order to recover VAT paid to their investment managers (managers) due to a mistake of law, the UK’s highest court has ruled.’

Full story

OUT-LAW.com, 25th April 2017

Source: www.out-law.com

One man’s loss is another man’s gain: choice of law rules for unjust enrichment claims – Commercial Disputes Blog

Posted February 22nd, 2016 in arbitration, conflict of laws, damages, EC law, fraud, news, restitution by sally

‘In a recent case, the English Commercial Court has determined that a claim in restitution based on unjust enrichment was governed by English law pursuant to EU Regulation 864/2007 (Rome II) and not the law of Geneva.’

Full story

Commercial Disputes Blog, 19th February 2016

Source: www.rpc.co.uk

Menelaou v Bank of Cyprus plc – WLR Daily

Posted November 26th, 2015 in appeals, banking, law reports, restitution, Supreme Court by tracey

Menelaou v Bank of Cyprus plc: [2015] UKSC 66; [2015] WLR (D) 438

‘Where a person was given a property by her parents bought with money from the sale of the family home, made possible by a bank having agreed to release its charges over the family home (securing the parents’ borrowing) to allow it to be sold, in return for receiving a lump sum payment out of the proceeds of sale to reduce the borrowing and a fresh charge over the new property to secure the remaining indebtedness, but— because the person had not been told of the fresh charge and it had been defectively executed— the new charge was void, the bank had an equitable interest in the new property to the extent of the value of the purported charge, which it could enforce by means of subrogation to an unpaid vendor’s lien.’

WLR Daily 4th November 2015

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Banque Cantonale de Geneve v Polevent Ltd and others – WLR Daily

Banque Cantonale de Geneve v Polevent Ltd and others: [2015] EWHC 1968 (Comm); [2015] WLR (D) 304

‘The law governing a claim in restitution was the law of the country in which the unjust enrichment took place pursuant to article 10(3) of Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 864/2007.’

WLR Daily, 10th July 2015

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Littlewoods Ltd and others v Revenue and Customs Commissioners (No 2) – WLR Daily

Posted June 3rd, 2015 in appeals, EC law, interest, law reports, restitution, VAT by sally

Littlewoods Ltd and others v Revenue and Customs Commissioners (No 2) [2015] EWCA Civ 515; [2015] WLR (D) 228

‘In accordance with a taxpayer’s rights under European Union law, sections 78 and 80 of the Value Added Tax act 1994 would be disapplied to enable the taxpayer to recover more than simple interest by seeking to recover in restitution the time value of sums which they wrongly paid.’

WLR Daily, 21st May 2015

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Lindum Construction Co Ltd and others v Office of Fair Trading – WLR Daily

Posted May 21st, 2014 in appeals, competition, law reports, penalties, restitution, time limits, tribunals by tracey

Lindum Construction Co Ltd and others v Office of Fair Trading: [2014] EWHC 1613 (Ch); [2014] WLR (D) 219

‘Where the statutory requirements for the imposition of a penalty under the Competition Act 1998 had been complied with, the statutory appeal process provided for by the Act was the exclusive route by which such penalty so imposed could be challenged. A party who failed to appeal against a penalty remained bound by it, irrespective of the outcome of any appeals brought by other parties against whom penalties had been imposed under the same decision.’

WLR Daily, 19th May 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

The “Anomalous” Fatal Accidents Act – Hardwicke Chambers

Posted May 12th, 2014 in bereavement, compensation, damages, news, restitution, Supreme Court by sally

‘Those are not my words but the view expressed on 2 April by Lord Sumption on the effective over-compensation which can result under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 (“the FAA”). The other Supreme Court Justices agreed with him. He expressed the view that, “What is clear is that sections 3 and 4 [of the FAA] mark a departure from the ordinary principles of assessment in English law, which can fairly be described as anomalous”. This was in a Supreme Court case which had to decide whether in a foreign accident case to apply German principles of assessment of damages (effectively full compensation) or English law in the form of the FAA: Cox v Ergo Versicherung AG (formerly known as Victoria) [2014] UKSC 22.’

Full story

Hardwicke Chambers, 11th April 2014

Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk

How long do I have? – Hardwicke Chambers

Posted January 22nd, 2014 in appeals, arbitration, contracts, limitations, news, restitution by sally

‘Until recently it was unclear how long a party who lost in an adjudication, and had to pay money to the winning party, had to bring a subsequent claim for recovery of those monies. The position has recently been resolved by the Court of Appeal in the case of Aspect Contracts (Asbestos) Ltd v Higgins Construction Plc [2013] EWCA Civ 1541 but the discussion had started earlier with the case of Jim Ennis Construction Ltd v Premier Asphalt Ltd [2009] EWHC 1906 (TCC).’

Full story

Hardwicke Chambers, 15th January 2014

Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk

Role of Equity in Mistaken Transactions – Speech by the Chancellor of the High Court

Posted November 25th, 2013 in causation, contracts, equity, mistake, rectification, restitution, speeches, trusts by tracey

‘Role of Equity in Mistaken Transactions – Speech by the Chancellor of the High Court. ACTAPS lecture 2013, delivered 20th November 2013.’

Full speech

Judiciary of England and Wales, 21st November 2013

Source: www.judiciary.gov.uk

TFL Management Services Ltd v Lloyds Bank plc – WLR Daily

Posted November 18th, 2013 in appeals, banking, costs, law reports, restitution by sally

TFL Management Services Ltd v Lloyds Bank plc [2013] EWCA Civ 1415; [2013] WLR (D) 437

“In determining whether a party had a claim for restitution based on unjust enrichment, the court ought to consider the following four questions: (i) has the defendant benefited or been enriched?; (ii) was the enrichment at the expense of the claimant?; (iii) was the enrichment unjust?; and (iv) was there any specific defence available to the defendant. The issue of whether any benefit was incidental and therefore amounted to a defence to an unjust enrichment claim was to be determined by reference to consideration of those four questions, rather than a formulation of a general exception based on characterisation of the nature of the benefit alone.”

WLR Daily, 14th November 2013

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Prudential Assurance Co Ltd v Revenue and Customs Comrs – WLR Daily

Posted October 30th, 2013 in corporation tax, EC law, interest, law reports, restitution, tax credits by sally

Prudential Assurance Co Ltd v Revenue and Customs Comrs [2013] EWHC 3249 (Ch); [2013] WLR (D) 411

“It was within the scope of conforming interpretation to construe section 790 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 as providing for the grant of a tax credit for foreign dividends to the extent necessary to secure compliance with European Union (‘EU’) law.”

WLR Daily, 24th October 2013

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Benedetti v Sawiris and others – WLR Daily

Benedetti v Sawiris and others [2013] UKSC 50; [2013] WLR (D) 286

“A restitutionary award made on the basis of unjust enrichment where the benefit was in the form of services was normally to be assessed by reference to the objective market value of the services, tested by the price which a reasonable person in the defendant’s position would have had to pay for the services, and taking into account conditions which increased or decreased the objective value of the benefit to any reasonable person in that position.”

WLR Daily, 17th July 2013

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Benedetti (Appellant) v Sawiris and others (Respondents) – Supreme Court

Benedetti (Appellant) v Sawiris and others (Respondents) [2013] UKSC 50 | UKSC 2011/0087 (YouTube)

Supreme Court, 17th July 2013

Source: www.youtube.com/user/UKSupremeCourt

Menelaou v Bank of Cyprus UK Ltd – WLR Daily

Posted July 5th, 2013 in appeals, banking, debts, law reports, restitution, substitution by tracey

Menelaou v Bank of Cyprus UK Ltd: [2013] EWCA Civ 1960;   [2013] WLR (D)  266

“A bank which had released its charges over property in exchange for a new charge over property purchased from the proceeds of sale of the other property was entitled by subrogation to an unpaid vendor’s lien on the new property.”

WLR Daily, 2nd July 2013

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Investment Trust Companies (in liquidation) v Revenue and Customs Comrs – WLR Daily

Posted April 2nd, 2013 in law reports, restitution, taxation, VAT by sally

Investment Trust Companies (in liquidation) v Revenue and Customs Comrs [2013] EWHC 665 (Ch); [2013] WLR (D) 125

“The scope of the cause of action in the law of restitution to recover tax which has been unlawfully exacted should be confined to those who themselves paid the sums to a public authority in response to an apparent statutory requirement to do so.”

WLR Daily, 26th March 2013

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Test Claimants in the Franked Investment Income Group Litigation v Customs and Excise Comrs (formerly Inland Revenue Comrs) – WLR Daily

Posted May 25th, 2012 in corporation tax, EC law, law reports, limitations, restitution by tracey

Test Claimants in the Franked Investment Income Group Litigation v Customs and Excise Comrs (formerly Inland Revenue Comrs): [2012] UKSC 19;  [2012] WLR (D)  161

“Claims for recovery of unlawfully exacted tax under the principle in Woolwich Equitable Building Society v Inland Revenue Comrs [1993] AC 70 (‘the Woolwich principle’) were not limited to those cases where there had been an actual demand by the revenue for payment, but applied generally in all cases where there had been a payment in response to an apparent statutory requirement to pay tax, which was not lawfully due.”

WLR Daily, 23rd May 2012

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

MacDonald and others v Costello and another – WLR Daily

Posted August 2nd, 2011 in appeals, contracts, law reports, restitution by sally

MacDonald and others v Costello and another [2011] EWCA Civ 930; [2011] WLR (D) 268

“Where building work was carried out pursuant to a contract made with a company for the benefit of its shareholders and directors, they were not liable in restitution for unjust enrichment when the company failed to make payments under the contract.”

WLR Daily, 29th July 2011

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

R (Child Poverty Action Group) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions – WLR Daily

Posted December 10th, 2010 in benefits, law reports, mistake, restitution by sally

R (Child Poverty Action Group) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions 2010 UKSC 54; [2010] WLR (D) 322

 “The only right to recover overpaid social security benefits paid according to an award was that conferred by s 71 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 which provided an exhaustive scheme for dealing with all overpayments made pursuant to benefit awards and applied only where there had been misrepresentation or non-disclosure. The Secretary of State was not therefore entitled to seek recovery of such overpayments paid in error by way of a restitutionary claim at common law.”

WLR Daily, 9th December 2010

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.