No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 17 November 2017
A customer purchases services from a supplier to which VAT at the applicable rate is added but VAT was not actually due. Is the customer able to recover these payments by bringing an unjust enrichment claim against the Revenue and Customs Commissioners? “Yes”, answered the Court of Appeal, on the basis that as a matter of “economic reality” the Commissioners were enriched at the expense of the customers, and that such an enrichment was unjust because VAT was not actually due. Lord Reed, giving the unanimous judgment of the Supreme Court, reversed that decision: Investment Trust Companies (In Liquidation) v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2017] UKSC 29; [2017] 2 W.L.R. 1200. The customers did not have an unjust enrichment claim against the Commissioners because their enrichment was not “at the expense of” the customers.