In General Healthcare Group v HMRC [2014] UKFTT 1087 (9 December 2014) the FTT found that the case of General Healthcare was bound by Nuffield [2013] UKFTT 291.
In relation to the choice of prosthesis by consultants General Healthcare did not contend that the facts in its case were materially different from that in Nuffield. Rather it argued that the FTT in Nuffield had failed to consider the correct facts in applying the law as it had found it to be and submitted that it would be wrong for the FTT to perpetuate such an error by making a lead case direction in a related case. The FTT found however that this was a matter of law which must be considered by the UT.
As for the existence of contractual agreements between consultants and the hospital the FTT...
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
In General Healthcare Group v HMRC [2014] UKFTT 1087 (9 December 2014) the FTT found that the case of General Healthcare was bound by Nuffield [2013] UKFTT 291.
In relation to the choice of prosthesis by consultants General Healthcare did not contend that the facts in its case were materially different from that in Nuffield. Rather it argued that the FTT in Nuffield had failed to consider the correct facts in applying the law as it had found it to be and submitted that it would be wrong for the FTT to perpetuate such an error by making a lead case direction in a related case. The FTT found however that this was a matter of law which must be considered by the UT.
As for the existence of contractual agreements between consultants and the hospital the FTT...
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
