St Matthews (West) Ltd & Ors, R (on the application of) v HM Treasury & Anor [2014] EWHC 1848 (Admin) (06 June 2014)

St Matthews (West) Ltd & Ors, R (on the application of) v HM Treasury & Anor [2014] EWHC 1848 (Admin) (06 June 2014)

The retrospective amendments to s.45 of the Finance Act 2003 were lawful, sufficiently foreseeable, not arbitrary, and proportionate. The claimants had no established possession or legitimate expectation under A1P1, and the Protocol on unscheduled tax law changes was not legally binding on Parliament. The...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 1848 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: ST MATTHEWS (WEST) LTD and others; Defendant: HER MAJESTY'S TREASURY; Defendant: THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HER MAJESTY'S REVENUE AND CUSTOMS
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 June 2014
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Rolled Up Hearing
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Retrospective Legislation, Stamp Duty Land Tax (sdlt), Tax Avoidance Schemes, Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR, Proportionality, Legitimate Expectation
Tax Law Human Rights Law Administrative Law Retrospective Legislation Stamp Duty Land Tax (sdlt) Tax Avoidance Schemes Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR Proportionality +1 more

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

ST MATTHEWS (WEST) LTD and others

Claimant

HER MAJESTY'S TREASURY

Defendant

THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HER MAJESTY'S REVENUE AND CUSTOMS

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Rolled Up Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether retrospective amendments to s.45 of the Finance Act 2003 by s.194(1)(a) and s.194(2) of the Finance Act 2013 are compatible with Article 1 of Protocol 1 ECHR (A1P1)
  2. 2 Whether the retrospective legislation was arbitrary or insufficiently foreseeable and thus unlawful under A1P1
  3. 3 Whether the Government's Protocol on unscheduled tax law changes was breached and if so, whether this affects lawfulness under A1P1

Ratio Decidendi

The retrospective amendments to s.45 of the Finance Act 2003 were lawful, sufficiently foreseeable, not arbitrary, and proportionate. The claimants had no established possession or legitimate expectation under A1P1, and the Protocol on unscheduled tax law changes was not legally binding on Parliament. The legislation was justified by the need to prevent abuse of SDLT rules and reinforce the deterrent effect against tax avoidance schemes.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Permission for judicial review refused
  • No declaration of incompatibility granted