Key Facts
- •Appeal concerns whether items constructed for a hydro-electric power station qualify for capital allowances under the Capital Allowances Act 2001 (CAA).
- •Disputed items include various conduits, a headrace, tailrace, turbine outflow tunnel, and dewatering/drainage tunnels, valued at approximately £200 million.
- •The Glendoe Scheme, where the items are located, is a unique large-scale hydroelectric scheme in the UK.
- •Section 22 List B Item 1 of the CAA disqualifies expenditure on 'A tunnel, bridge, viaduct, aqueduct, embankment or cutting'.
Legal Principles
Statutory interpretation: Ordinary meaning of words should be considered in their context.
Capital Allowances Act 2001
Noscitur a sociis: The meaning of a word is influenced by the words surrounding it.
Case Law
Thematic interpretation: Grouping of items in a list can indicate a shared theme influencing their meaning.
Case Law
Words in a statute derive their meaning from their context.
R (O) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2022] UKSC 3
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The Court of Appeal's interpretation of 'tunnel' (a subterranean passage for a way to pass through) and 'aqueduct' (a bridge-like structure for carrying water) is upheld. The disputed items do not fall within the definition of 'tunnel' or 'aqueduct' in Section 22 List B Item 1, thus qualifying for capital allowances.