The case of HMRC v Blue Sphere Global Ltd (No 3) (CA – 16 December) follows on from the CA decision reported at [2010] STC 1436. The appellant company (B) had claimed a substantial repayment of input tax; the Tribunal had upheld HMRC’s rejection of the claim but the Ch D had allowed B’s appeal and the CA had upheld this decision. B applied for indemnity costs. The CA directed that the company should receive its costs on the indemnity basis with effect from 23 July 2009 (the date on which the company had made an offer under Part 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules). Moses LJ observed that ‘where a claimant’s Part 36 offer is refused the claimant is compelled to continue in order to recover at least the sum for which the claimant is prepared to settle. In those circumstances it is to be expected...
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:
The case of HMRC v Blue Sphere Global Ltd (No 3) (CA – 16 December) follows on from the CA decision reported at [2010] STC 1436. The appellant company (B) had claimed a substantial repayment of input tax; the Tribunal had upheld HMRC’s rejection of the claim but the Ch D had allowed B’s appeal and the CA had upheld this decision. B applied for indemnity costs. The CA directed that the company should receive its costs on the indemnity basis with effect from 23 July 2009 (the date on which the company had made an offer under Part 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules). Moses LJ observed that ‘where a claimant’s Part 36 offer is refused the claimant is compelled to continue in order to recover at least the sum for which the claimant is prepared to settle. In those circumstances it is to be expected...
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:
