Shiner & Anor, R (on the application of) v Revenue & Customs

Shiner & Anor, R (on the application of) v Revenue & Customs

The claimants' application for judicial review is dismissed because, on the facts, there was no relevant 'movement of capital' within the meaning of Article 56 EC, and therefore Article 56 is not engaged. Additionally, for the reasons given in Huitson, the retrospective provisions of s.58 are proportionate and compatible with Article 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention.

Parties
Claimants: Mr Ian Isaac Shiner & Another; Defendants: Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 July 2011
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Substantive Hearing at First Instance in the Court of Appeal
Outcome
Application for judicial review dismissed
Legal Topics
Retrospective Taxation, Double Taxation Arrangements, Free Movement of Capital, Judicial Review, Legitimate Expectation, Proportionality, Abuse of Rights
Tax Law European Union Law Human Rights Law Retrospective Taxation Double Taxation Arrangements Free Movement of Capital Judicial Review Legitimate Expectation +2 more

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Ian Isaac Shiner & Another

Claimants

Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Substantive Hearing at First Instance in the Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the retrospective application of s.58 of the Finance Act 2008 is incompatible with Article 56 EC (now Article 63 TFEU) on free movement of capital
  2. 2 Whether s.58 infringes the principle of legal certainty and legitimate expectation under EU law
  3. 3 Whether s.58 is compatible with Article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants' application for judicial review is dismissed because, on the facts, there was no relevant 'movement of capital' within the meaning of Article 56 EC, and therefore Article 56 is not engaged. Additionally, for the reasons given in Huitson, the retrospective provisions of s.58 are proportionate and compatible with Article 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention.

Court Disposition

Application for judicial review dismissed