Haskell v. Tax Comptroller [2017] 1 JLR 230 (14 June 2017)
- Citation
- [2017] 1 JLR 230
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Jersey
- Posture
- Judicial Review / Leave Granted to Apply for Judicial Review
More details
- Posture
- Judicial Review / Leave Granted to Apply for Judicial Review
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
If leave to apply for judicial review is granted, the Tax Comptroller must provide the court with all relevant facts and reasoning underlying the decision to issue a notice; letters of request are generally not disclosable, but disclosure may be ordered in appropriate circumstances.
Court disposition
Leave to apply for judicial review granted; duty of candour imposed on Comptroller.
Orders
- Comptroller must provide all relevant facts and reasoning to the court
- Letters of request not disclosable by default, but may be ordered in proper case
02
Material facts
Parties
Haskell
ApplicantTax Comptroller
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Judicial Review / Leave Granted to Apply for Judicial Review
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the Tax Comptroller has a duty of candour to disclose all relevant facts and reasoning underlying the decision to issue a notice
- 02
Whether letters of request are disclosable in judicial review proceedings
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Applicant sought disclosure of letters of request and challenged the Comptroller's decision to issue a notice.
- Respondent
- Respondent argued that the default position is that letters of request are not disclosable and defended the decision-making process.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Jersey judicial review jurisprudence
Duty of candour requires the Comptroller to provide the court with all relevant facts and reasoning underlying the decision to issue a notice.
- 02
Jersey judicial review jurisprudence
Default position is that letters of request are not disclosable, but may be ordered in a proper case.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
If leave to apply for judicial review is granted, the Tax Comptroller must provide the court with all relevant facts and reasoning underlying the decision to issue a notice; letters of request are generally not disclosable, but disclosure may be ordered in appropriate circumstances.
Court disposition
Leave to apply for judicial review granted; duty of candour imposed on Comptroller.
- Comptroller must provide all relevant facts and reasoning to the court
- Letters of request not disclosable by default, but may be ordered in proper case
Source and reliance status
Official court record
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Court record
Judgment
[ Home ] [ Databases ] [ World Law ] [ Multidatabase Search ] [ Help ] [ Feedback ] [
DONATE ] Jersey Law Reports You are here:
BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Law Reports >> Haskell v. Tax Comptroller [2017] 1 JLR 230 (14 June 2017) URL: https://www.bailii.org/je/cases/JLR/2017/JLR171230.html Cite as: [2017] 1 JLR 230 [ New search ] [ Help ] Haskell v. Tax Comptroller 2017 (1) JLR 230 (14 June 2017) Taxation-exchange of tax information-judicial review-if applicant granted leave to apply for judicial review, Comptroller has duty of candour to provide to court all relevant facts and reasoning underlying decision to issue notice-default position that letters of request not disclosable, but may be ordered in proper case The document you wish to view is available to registered users or can be purchased as a PDF. To purchase this document in PDF format or alternatively to Register to purchase membership go to the Jersey Law website via this link: 2017 (1) JLR 230 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII URL: https://www.bailii.org/je/cases/JLR/2017/JLR171230.html
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.