St Matthews (West) Ltd, R (On the Application Of) v HM Treasury

St Matthews (West) Ltd, R (On the Application Of) v HM Treasury

Cross-examination was not necessary to determine the claim fairly and justly as the factual background was adequately covered in witness statements and the legal issues did not require further elucidation through live evidence.

Parties
Claimant: St Matthews (West) Ltd; Defendant: HM Treasury
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 May 2014
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Application for Permission and Rolled Up Hearing
Outcome
Application for cross-examination declined.
Legal Topics
Retrospective Legislation, Tax Avoidance, Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR, Article 6 ECHR, Judicial Review Procedure
Constitutional Law Tax Law Human Rights Retrospective Legislation Tax Avoidance Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR Article 6 ECHR Judicial Review Procedure

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

St Matthews (West) Ltd

Claimant

HM Treasury

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Application for Permission and Rolled Up Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether cross-examination of witnesses should be allowed in judicial review proceedings
  2. 2 Lawfulness of retrospective legislation targeting tax avoidance schemes
  3. 3 Selectivity and arbitrariness in application of retrospective legislation

Ratio Decidendi

Cross-examination was not necessary to determine the claim fairly and justly as the factual background was adequately covered in witness statements and the legal issues did not require further elucidation through live evidence.

Court Disposition

Application for cross-examination declined.

Orders

  • Article 6 ECHR point may be raised.
  • Exhibits to Mr Bryant's witness statement stand in evidence.