Cameron & Ors v Revenue & Customs

Cameron & Ors v Revenue & Customs

The court found that the Defendants had published the broad concession in the Blue Book, a formal document aimed at all eligible seafarers, and had not effectively withdrawn or altered it by notice to the relevant class. The claimants relied on the broad concession, their reliance was reasonable, and at least one claimant acted to his detriment. The claimants therefore had a legitimate expectation that their claims for SED/FED would be determined in accordance with the broad concession, and the Defendants' decisions to disallow their claims were unlawful.

Parties
First Claimant: Ian Cameron; Claimant (no Substantive Relief): Nautilus International; Second Claimant: Alon Palmer; Defendants: Commissioners for HM Revenue & Customs
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 May 2012
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment
Outcome
Claim for judicial review allowed for both claimants.
Legal Topics
Legitimate Expectation, Judicial Review, Tax Concessions, Foreign Earnings Deduction, Seafarers' Earnings Deduction
Tax Law Administrative Law Legitimate Expectation Judicial Review Tax Concessions Foreign Earnings Deduction Seafarers' Earnings Deduction

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ian Cameron

First Claimant

Nautilus International

Claimant (no Substantive Relief)

Alon Palmer

Second Claimant

Commissioners for HM Revenue & Customs

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants had a legitimate expectation to be taxed in accordance with the 'broad concession' as published by the Defendants.
  2. 2 Whether the Defendants were bound by the broad concession until effective notice of withdrawal or alteration was given to all potentially eligible seafarers.
  3. 3 Whether the claimants acted to their detriment in reliance on the broad concession.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Defendants had published the broad concession in the Blue Book, a formal document aimed at all eligible seafarers, and had not effectively withdrawn or altered it by notice to the relevant class. The claimants relied on the broad concession, their reliance was reasonable, and at least one claimant acted to his detriment. The claimants therefore had a legitimate expectation that their claims for SED/FED would be determined in accordance with the broad concession, and the Defendants' decisions to disallow their claims were unlawful.

Court Disposition

Claim for judicial review allowed for both claimants.

Orders

  • Precise form of relief to be determined after further submissions or by agreement between counsel.