Key Facts
- •Appeal against Master Dagnall's order staying Part 8 claims challenging the Loan Charge, instead of striking them out.
- •Part 8 claims sought declaratory relief regarding the Loan Charge's compatibility with EU law and the ECHR.
- •Appellants argued Part 8 claims were public law challenges that should have been brought via judicial review (CPR Part 54).
- •Respondents argued that the Part 8 route was necessary to ensure effective judicial protection under EU law, given the 3-month time limit for judicial review and potential for damages claims under Francovich.
- •Judicial review claims were subsequently dismissed, and permission to appeal refused.
- •Appellants raised two grounds of appeal: the Part 8 claims constituted a public law challenge and a challenge to prospective decisions within the Tribunal's exclusive jurisdiction.
Legal Principles
Exclusivity principle: Public law challenges should generally be brought by judicial review, not other procedures.
O’Reilly v Mackman [1983] 2 AC 237
Autologic principle: If Parliament provides a statutory appeals process for tax disputes, that process must be followed.
Autologic Holdings plc v Inland Revenue Commissioners [2006] 1 AC 118
Principle of effectiveness: EU law requires national procedural rules not to render the exercise of EU rights practically impossible or excessively difficult.
Unibet (London) Ltd v Justitiekanslern [2007] 2 CMLR 30
Francovich principle: Member States must compensate individuals for loss suffered due to breaches of EU law.
Francovich and Bonifaci v Italy [1993] 2 CMLR 66
Outcomes
Appeal allowed.
The Part 8 claims were an abuse of process as they raised public law challenges that should have been brought via judicial review. The Master erred in staying the claims instead of striking them out. The Autologic principle was also applicable.
Recusal application rejected.
The judge's previous role as Standing Counsel to the Inland Revenue (Rating and Valuation) did not create an appearance of bias.