Jazztel Plc (As Test Claimant for Glo Issues 9a,9b And 10) v Revenue And Customs

Jazztel Plc (As Test Claimant for Glo Issues 9a,9b And 10) v Revenue And Customs

The order sought constitutes an interim remedy under section 234 of the Finance Act 2013, as the relevant points of law have not been finally determined due to pending appeals. The circumstances of the claimants are not exceptional within the meaning of section 234(3)(b), and the court is therefore precluded from granting the requested relief.

Parties
Applicant: Jazztel PLC; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Application Under Group Litigation Order (glo) / Ruling on Application for Interim Payments to Non Test Claimants Pending Appeal
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Group Litigation Orders, Interim Remedies, Limitation Periods, Mistake of Law, Change of Position Defence
Tax Law Civil Procedure Restitution Group Litigation Orders Interim Remedies Limitation Periods Mistake of Law Change of Position Defence

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jazztel PLC

Applicant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Application Under Group Litigation Order (glo) / Ruling on Application for Interim Payments to Non Test Claimants Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether non-test claimants in a GLO are entitled to interim payments pending appeal when judgment has been given in the test claim
  2. 2 Whether section 234 of the Finance Act 2013 restricts such payments
  3. 3 Whether exceptional circumstances exist under section 234(3)(b)

Ratio Decidendi

The order sought constitutes an interim remedy under section 234 of the Finance Act 2013, as the relevant points of law have not been finally determined due to pending appeals. The circumstances of the claimants are not exceptional within the meaning of section 234(3)(b), and the court is therefore precluded from granting the requested relief.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed