Court rejects call by council for pensions set-off from officer convicted of fraud – Local Government Lawyer

‘The High Court has rejected a London borough’s bid to set off the pension benefits of a former senior finance officer who defrauded the council.’

Full Story

Local Government Lawyer, 24th November 2017

Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk

Somebody else’s money – Nearly Legal

‘Ms Oliver was the long leaseholder in a block of flats on the Lansdowne Estate, which was owned by the Council. The Council carried out city wide major works, which included works on the Lansdown Estate. Some of the works were eligible for a contribution from a commercial energy company as part of the Community Energy Savings Programme (“CESP”). In total 15 of the 25 blocks on the Lansdowne Estate were eligible to receive CESP funding. The contribution to Ms Oliver’s block was £43,570.44. The Council decided not to pass the CESP directly to the leaseholders as a set off against their service charge contributions. Rather, the Council decided to attribute the money to the funding of works to its city-wide housing stock. The effect of this was that every leaseholder’s service charge was reduced irrespective of whether their block had been entitled to CESP funding.’

Full story

Nearly Legal, 10th April 2017

Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk

Birmingham Hippodrome Theatre Trust Ltd v Revenue and Customs Comrs – WLR Daily

Posted May 29th, 2014 in appeals, HM Revenue & Customs, law reports, repayment, set-off, theatre, VAT by michael

Birmingham Hippodrome Theatre Trust Ltd v Revenue and Customs Comrs [2014] EWCA Civ 684;  [2014] WLR (D)  232

‘Where the taxpayer made a claim for repayment of VAT which had been paid owing to a mistake, all the consequences of the mistake were to be taken into account in assessing the quantum of his claim. The revenue was, therefore, entitled under section 81(3A) of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 to take into account both credits and debits and to set off amounts of input tax it had wrongly paid to the taxpayer against the amount the taxpayer now claimed to be repaid in respect of output tax it wrongly paid to the revenue.’

WLR Daily, 22nd May 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

DCC Holdings (UK) Ltd v Revenue and Customs Comrs – WLR Daily

Posted December 17th, 2010 in corporation tax, law reports, loans, set-off, statutory interpretation by sally

DCC Holdings (UK) Ltd v Revenue and Customs Comrs [2010] UKSC 58; [2010] WLR (D) 333

“When interpreting a deeming provision in a taxing statute it was important not to take the hypothesis further than was warranted. It followed that the deeming provisions in corporation tax legislation on sale and resale ‘repo’ transactions — whereby the parties’ accounts were to be debited and credited on the basis that it was a deemed loan relationship between them — were to be construed so that they reflected the statutory purpose of taxing such transactions on a uniform basis and not so that one party could claim a debit which could be set off against other liabilities.”

WLR Daily, 16th 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.

Geldof Metaalconstructie NV v Simon Carves Ltd – WLR Daily

Posted June 15th, 2010 in appeals, contracts, damages, law reports, set-off by sally

Geldof Metaalconstructie NV v Simon Carves Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 667; [2010] WLR (D) 146

“A defendant was entitled to set off against the claimant’s claim under an installation contract a counterclaim under a separate supply contract, because the claimant had itself linked the two contracts by demanding payment of invoices under the supply contract as a condition of continuing performance of the installation contract. In addition, the supply contract contained a right to set-off clause which went further than the common law in permitting the defendant to set off “any amounts lawfully due” against the purchase price.”

WLR Daily, 14th June 2010

Source:

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

In re Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander Ltd (in administration) – WLR Daily

Posted May 13th, 2010 in administration orders, appeals, banking, debts, insolvency, law reports, set-off by sally

In re Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander Ltd (in administration) [2010] EWCA Civ 518; [2010] WLR (D) 119

“After the set-off of cross-claims as between a company in administration and one of its creditors, the balance payable by a creditor to the company under r 2.85(8) of the Insolvency Rules 1986 in respect of a future debt was not to be a sum discounted to present value under r 2.105 but was to be an equivalent undiscounted amount.”
WLR Daily, 11th May 2010
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.