Telfer v Sakellarios

Telfer v Sakellarios

The payments under the Deed were employment income, not capital receipts for a beneficial interest in shares. The Defendant was an 'other payer' with sufficient UK tax presence and was obliged to deduct PAYE at the Claimant’s tax code rate. The Defendant has, in principle, a right to reimbursement for past sums paid gross, based on mistake, but no implied term arises. No final orders are made until HMRC’s position is clarified.

Parties
Claimant: Nicholas David Telfer; Defendant: Costas Sakellarios
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 June 2013
Procedural Posture
Commercial Claim for Payment Under Deed / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed; Defendant entitled in principle to reimbursement for overpaid sums, but no final orders pending HMRC clarification.
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Contract, PAYE Obligations, Employment Income, Implied Terms, Mistake and Restitution
Contract Law Employment Law Tax Law Interpretation of Contract PAYE Obligations Employment Income Implied Terms Mistake and Restitution

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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nicholas David Telfer

Claimant

Costas Sakellarios

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Claim for Payment Under Deed / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether payments under the Deed constituted employment income subject to PAYE
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant was obliged to deduct tax from payments under the Deed
  3. 3 Whether the Claimant had a beneficial interest in shares or only a right to payment of value

Ratio Decidendi

The payments under the Deed were employment income, not capital receipts for a beneficial interest in shares. The Defendant was an 'other payer' with sufficient UK tax presence and was obliged to deduct PAYE at the Claimant’s tax code rate. The Defendant has, in principle, a right to reimbursement for past sums paid gross, based on mistake, but no implied term arises. No final orders are made until HMRC’s position is clarified.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; Defendant entitled in principle to reimbursement for overpaid sums, but no final orders pending HMRC clarification.