Restitution
front page

What's new?

Archive front page

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2007

2006

2008

2009

Dear Colleagues,

Members may be interested to note that the Court of Appeal has just handed down a decision in Monro v HM Revenue & Customs [2008] EWCA Civ 306. Answering a question alluded to but not answered in DMG v IRC, the Court holds that where s. 33 of the Taxes Management Act 1970 applies, the statutory scheme displaces the common law claim that would otherwise be available.

At [23], Arden LJ concludes:

Undoubtedly, Mr Monro paid money under mistake of law, and a remedy at common law in general exists in that situation. Such a right can, however, be excluded by express words or necessary implication. In this case, the implication arises because Parliament has created a specific remedy with a limitation to exclude payments made under generally accepted practice. That limitation would be defeated if the court permitted an action to be brought at common law. That principle applies even though the statute is a taxing statute which must be interpreted so as not to impose burdens on the taxpayer unfairly. I have already discussed the obvious purpose of subs (2A). It would make a nonsense of that purpose if it was possible to bring an action at common law for the recovery of money in circumstances where s 33(1) applies.