CASE SUMMARIES: 14 April 1997
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.The following notes of judgments were prepared by the reporters of the All England Law Reports.
Inheritance tax
Jones & Anr (Administrators of Estate of Balls Deceased) v Inland Revenue Commrs; ChD (Lightman J) 14 February 1997.
The administrators of an estate were not entitled to claim relief under ch IV, pt 6 of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984. The word "sold" in s 191 of the Act meant conveyed or transferred on completion of sale, and although the administrators had entered into a contract for the sale of the pro- perty it had never completed. The value of the property for the purposes of inheritance tax was, therefore, the probate value.
David Parry (Ellison & Co, Colchester) for the plaintiffs; Michael Furness (IR Solicitor) for the Crown.
Paternity
U v W (A-G intervening); FD; (Wilson J) 19 Feb 1997.
An application by the mother of twins for a declaration of non-genetic paternity was dismissed. The parties had received fertilisation treatment in Italy and had been "treated together" for the purposes of s 28 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. Although the treatment had been provided outside the UK by a doctor who was not, for the purposes of s 28, a person to whom a licence applied, s 28(3), which was prima facie restrictive of the freedom to provide services under art 59 of the EEC Treaty, did not infringe art 59.
David Vaughan QC, Barbara Hewson (Kitsons) for the applicant; Timothy Scott QC, Paul Storey (Tozers) for the respondent; Nicholas Paines (DSS Solicitor) for the Attorney-General.
VAT
Jubilee Recreation Centre Ltd v Customs & Excise Commrs; QBD (Lightman J) 6 March 1997.
Building work carried out on a protected building was zero-rated for VAT, since the building was used as a sports centre "similarly" to a village hall for the benefit of the local community, which included people working in the area as well as residents.
Andrew Hitchmough (McKenna & Co) for the taxpayer; Michael Kent QC (C & E) for the Crown.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments