Newcastle United Football Club v Commissioners for HMRC
MR JUSTICE FORDHAM: 1. This is a judicial determination on the papers, but where it is, in my judgment, appropriate to give reasons by way of a short judgment. This is an appeal by case stated in which a minded to transfer order (“MTTO”) was made on 26 August 2022 to which the parties jointly responded by representations on 1...
Calcul en cours · 0
MR JUSTICE FORDHAM: 1. This is a judicial determination on the papers, but where it is, in my judgment, appropriate to give reasons by way of a short judgment. This is an appeal by case stated in which a minded to transfer order (“MTTO”) was made on 26 August 2022 to which the parties jointly responded by representations on 1 September 2022. Those representations assert that London is the region in which “both parties have the closest connection”. That makes sense for the Respondent, based as it is at E20. But I cannot accept it in relation to the Appellant, based at NE1. 2. The case has its origin in warrants, issued by Leeds Crown Court and executed at the Appellant’s premises at NE1 and NE12, in April 2017. However, the Case Stated appeal arises directly out of the determination of the Crown Court at Kingston on Thames in July 2022, where the relevant application was heard. For that hearing, in Greater London, both parties used their London solicitors and instructed London-based Leading Counsel, now sensibly maintained for this case stated appeal. Where it arises out of a determination of Kingston Crown Court, I am persuaded that the appeal (the relevant ‘claim’) has a specific, and its closest, connection to the South East region, where moreover the Respondent is based. The South East as a venue is reinforced by the London base of all the lawyers, including London-based Leading Counsel on both sides, for this case arising directly from a determination of a court in the South East where they all appeared. No countervailing consideration justifies transfer to Leeds. 3. I accept the parties’ Joint Submission and direct that this appeal stay in London.
Sources officielles : consulter la page source
Open Justice Licence (The National Archives).
Articles similaires
A propos de cette decision
Décisions similaires
Royaume-Uni
First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) – Information Rights
Beacon Counselling Trust v The Information Commissioner & Anor
Introduction to the Appeal 1. On 23 May 2024, the Appellant submitted a request (“the Request”) to the Leeds and York Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (“the Trust”) for copies of correspondence making reference to the Appellant, which had been sent to or from a named person at the Trust from 1 February 2023 to the date of the Request. 2....
Royaume-Uni
High Court (Chancery Division)
Kalaivani Jaipal Kirishani v George Major
Sir Anthony Mann : Introduction 1. This is an appeal from an order of HHJ Gerald sitting in the County Court at Central London dated 23rd December 2024 in which he dismissed two of three claims made by Ms Kirishana as claimant against her former cohabitee Mr Major. The claims were for a contribution to household and other domestic expenses,...
Royaume-Uni
High Court (Insolvency and Companies List)
Joanna Rich v JDDR Capital Limited
ICC JUDGE AGNELLO KC: Introduction 1. This is the judgment in relation to an application to set aside a statutory demand against Mrs Joanna Rich (Mrs Rich) and a petition against Mr Clive Rich (Mr Rich) relating to the same debt claimed under a personal guarantee provided by them in relation to a loan granted to LawBit Limited (Lawbit). Mr...