Find a Barrister  Search site

Conde Nast/Fleming (House of Lords)

The judgment of the House of Lords in Fleming and Condé Nast is the latest instalment of the litigation stemming from the introduction of the three-year caps in 1996 and 1997. The issue for the House was how to deal with the fact that the UK government introduced a time limit for claims under Regulation 29(1) of the Value Added Tax Regulations 1995 ("VATR 1995") without providing for a transitional period in respect of claims already accrued. It was accepted by the Commissioners that the failure to provide for a transitional period was a breach of Community law and that national law which is incompatible with Community law must be disapplied to the extent necessary. The question, therefore, was how far the cap should be disapplied.

The Commissioners argued that the cap should only be disapplied to:(i) claims made within a reasonable period after the introduction ofthe new limitation periods in 1996 and 1997; (ii) alternatively, claims made within a reasonable time after it became apparent to taxpayers that the Commissioners should have provided a reasonable transitional period under Regulation 29(1), (iii)alternatively, claims which could or would have been made within areasonable transitional period had one actually been provided for.

The House (Lord Walker dissenting) held that the cap had to be disapplied to all claims which had accrued prior to the introduction of the caps. It was not possible for the court to cap the claims because it was for the legislature or the Commissioners to provide for a proper, prospective transitional period.

Christopher Vajda QC and Valentina Sloane represented Conde Nast.

To read our case note, please click here.

To read the judgment, please click here.

For more information on the members involved, please click below:
Christopher Vajda QC
Valentina Sloane