Van Der Merwe v Goldman & Anor

Van Der Merwe v Goldman & Anor

The transactions were set aside as the Claimant and First Defendant acted together and made a relevant mistake; HMRC's grounds for appeal lacked realistic prospects of success; certificate for leapfrog appeal was refused as the case was not suitable; HMRC ordered to pay Claimant's costs relating to pleadings and part of trial, but not First Defendant's costs.

Parties
Claimant: Philip Anton van der Merwe; First Defendant: Deborah Lynne Goldman; Second Defendant: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil / Post Judgment Written Submissions and Consequential Orders
Outcome
Orders made to set aside relevant transactions; permission to appeal refused; certificate for leapfrog appeal refused; costs awarded to Claimant as specified; no order as to costs for First Defendant.
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Transactions, Mistake in Equity, Costs, Leapfrog Appeal, Public Policy
Trusts Equity Mistake Setting Aside Transactions Mistake in Equity Costs Leapfrog Appeal Public Policy

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Philip Anton van der Merwe

Claimant

Deborah Lynne Goldman

First Defendant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Post Judgment Written Submissions and Consequential Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Order to give effect to judgment
  2. 2 Permission to appeal to Court of Appeal
  3. 3 Certificate under section 12 Administration of Justice Act 1969

Ratio Decidendi

The transactions were set aside as the Claimant and First Defendant acted together and made a relevant mistake; HMRC's grounds for appeal lacked realistic prospects of success; certificate for leapfrog appeal was refused as the case was not suitable; HMRC ordered to pay Claimant's costs relating to pleadings and part of trial, but not First Defendant's costs.

Court Disposition

Orders made to set aside relevant transactions; permission to appeal refused; certificate for leapfrog appeal refused; costs awarded to Claimant as specified; no order as to costs for First Defendant.

Orders

  • Set aside transfer of 24 March 2006 and settlement and transfer of 27 March 2006.
  • Permission to appeal to Court of Appeal refused.