Devine v McAteer [2012] NICA 30 (7 September 2012)

Devine v McAteer [2012] NICA 30 (7 September 2012)

The company's activity—dealing in land—was specifically excluded from EIS relief under section 297(2)(a) of the 1988 Act; thus, even if funds were earmarked within 12 months, the statutory requirements were not met and the loss of tax relief was not caused by the appellant's breach of duty. No breach of Article 6 ECHR or judicial bias was established.

Citation
[2012] NICA 30
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Sean Devine; Defendant/appellant: Daniel McAteer
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
07 September 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Enterprise Investment Scheme (eis), Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988, Director's Duties, Accountant's Duty of Care, Loss of Tax Relief, Remoteness of Damage, Article 6 ECHR (fair Trial), Judicial Bias
Tax Law Company Law Professional Negligence Enterprise Investment Scheme (eis) Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 Director's Duties Accountant's Duty of Care Loss of Tax Relief +3 more

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sean Devine

Plaintiff/respondent

Daniel McAteer

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant, as accountant and director, was negligent in failing to ensure EIS funds were employed within statutory period
  2. 2 Whether the company's activities qualified for EIS relief under the 1988 Act
  3. 3 Whether the trial was unfair or judicially biased in breach of Article 6 ECHR

Ratio Decidendi

The company's activity—dealing in land—was specifically excluded from EIS relief under section 297(2)(a) of the 1988 Act; thus, even if funds were earmarked within 12 months, the statutory requirements were not met and the loss of tax relief was not caused by the appellant's breach of duty. No breach of Article 6 ECHR or judicial bias was established.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed; the judgment of the High Court is affirmed.