Explaining ‘Lost’ Cases

Does this make sufficient sense?

At one stage many cases were published by Bailii, but withdrawn a few years later. Our systems collected and published links to these cases as they became available, but there is no easy way for us to remove them save by removing them as we come across them. 

We are doing this on a regular basis, but many remain.

The entries we have are held first in our database, and a version of that entry published to the website.

We are content to remove them. Please note that once they have been deleted from the website, it may take several days for them to disappear from caches of the site, and from search engines. This does however happen.

Forum closure

I intend to close the forum/community. It has not worked, and I think a better avenue will simply be registering users from swarb.co.uk and encouraging conversation within the davidswarbrick.co.uk site.

The facility has not attracted support, and I have never been quite comfortable that the set up works. In addition it generates many spam registrations. These take several minutes every day to get rid of, for no signficant return.

I will try to use the basic WordPress system for discussions. I am sure it will not be as good, but a basic conversation structure is all that is needed.

Explainaway Ltd and Others v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 24 Jun 2011

Corporation tax – scheme to avoid corporation tax on chargeable gains – whether derivative transactions gave rise to chargeable gains and losses – whether loss arising on disposal of shares in group company was an allowable loss – ICTA, s 128 and TCGA, s 2 and s 143 – application of Ramsay principle – whether interest costs for scheme borrowings had an unallowable purpose – FA 1996, Sch 9, para 13

[2011] UKFTT 414 (TC)
England and Wales

Corporation Tax

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.443107

Greystone International Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 13 May 2011

VAT – MTIC fraud – input tax – whether the purchases by the Appellant in the identified deals were ‘connected with fraudulent evasion of VAT’ as per Axel Kittel at para. [61] – held they were – whether the Appellant was a taxable person who knew or should have known that by its purchase it was participating in a transaction ‘connected with fraudulent evasion of VAT’ – held it was a taxable person who both knew and should have known this – appeal dismissed

[2011] UKFTT 321 (TC)
England and Wales


Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.443041

Commission v Italy (Traitement Des Eaux Urbaines Residuaires) (Judgment): ECJ 6 Oct 2021

Failure by a State to fulfill obligations – Article 258 TFEU – Directive 91/271 / EEC – Collection and treatment of urban waste water – Articles 3 to 5 and 10 – Lack of urban water collection systems in certain agglomerations – Lack of secondary treatment or equivalent treatment of urban waste water in certain agglomerations – Construction and operation of treatment plants – Control of discharges from such plants – Sensitive areas – More rigorous treatment of waste water

C-668/19, [2021] EUECJ C-668/19, ECLI:EU:C:2021:815


Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.668539