- Cited — Patricia Kihembo v Disclosure and Barring Service 2023-12-21
“…In Edwards v Bairstow [1956] AC 14 at 38, Lord Radcliffe referred to the efficient administration of justice. Those reasons make eminent sense in an appeal from a court or tribunal. They are not…”
- Explained — The Commissioners For HMRC v Bluecrest Capital Management LP & Ors 2023-12-15
“…fact and law, for the tribunal of fact, whose decision could then only be challenged as erroneous in law on the limited grounds explained in Edwards v Bairstow [1956] AC 14.…”
- Cited — Phillip Gwyn James Evans v Barclays Bank PLC & Ors 2023-11-09
“…ges to findings of fact or to evaluations of combinations of fact. The classic formulation of the test here is found in Edwards (Inspector of Taxes) v Bairstow [1956] AC 14 (“Bairstow”) which held that an appellate court could reverse a finding of fact where it appeared that the decision maker acted without any evidence, or on a v…”
- Cited — London Luton Hotel BPRA Property Fund LLP v The Commissioners for HMRC 2023-04-04
“… as containing insufficient analysis and ignoring undisputed facts; the result was an Edwards v Bairstow error of law by the FTT (UT decision at [257], and see [1956] AC 14 per Lord Radcliffe at p. 36).…”
- Cited — Commissioners for HMRC v Centrica Overseas Holdings Limited 2022-11-18
“…he evaluation of those findings made by the FTT. As HMRC have not sought to challenge those findings in accordance with Edwards (Inspector of Taxes) v Bairstow [1956] AC 14, it is submitted that there is no basis for interfering with the FTT’s conclusions on appeal.…”
- Cited — Stephen Hoey & Ors. v Commissioners for HMRC 2022-05-13
“…[1956] AC 14…”
- Cited — Stephen Hoey & Ors. v Commissioners for HMRC 2022-05-13
“…in reaching their conclusion. The principles on which the court acts are to be found in the speech of Lord Radcliffe in Edwards (Inspector of Taxes) v Bairstow [1956] AC 14, 36 TC 207 and are too well known to repeat. It is sufficient to say that the court will interfere where the true and only reasonable conclusion from the facts…”
- Cited — Manchester City Council v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government 2021-12-16
“…As I have said, an appeal from a decision of the Secretary of State to the court lies only on a point of law. In Edwards v Bairstow[1956] AC 14 Lord Radcliffe, in a well-known passage, said:…”
- Cited — HMRC v SSE Generation Ltd 2021-02-01
“…n aqueduct or not was a question of fact and not of law and could only be overturned on Edwards v Bairstow grounds (see Edwards (Inspector of Taxes) v Bairstow [1956] AC 14 at 36). SSE had not mounted any such challenge to the finding.…”
- Cited — Granada UK Rental & Retail Ltd & Ors v The Pensions Regulator 2019-06-20
“… from a decision of the Upper Tribunal that something is (or is not) reasonable remain as stated by Lord Radcliffe in the well-known case of Edwards v Bairstow [1956] AC 14 at [36]:…”
- Cited — Secretary of State for the Home Department v JG (Jamaica) 2019-06-12
“…“replete with correct self-directions in law” and it reminded itself, by reference to Edwards v Bairstow [1956] AC 14, of the limited basis on which an error of law could be found in the factual conclusions of a tribunal which had directed itself correctly: in effect the decis…”
- Cited — Haworth, R (On the Application Of) v Revenue And Customs 2019-05-01
“…s reached a conclusion of fact which was simply not available to them, and thus made an error of law: Edwards (Inspector of Taxes) v Bairstow (1955) 36 TC 207, [1956] AC 14.…”
- Explained — Haworth, R (On the Application Of) v Revenue And Customs 2019-05-01
“…cumstances in which such a finding is susceptible to challenge in a tax context were explained by the House of Lords in Edwards (Inspector of Taxes) v Bairstow [1956] AC 14. Viscount Simonds there said (at 29) that a finding of fact should be set aside if it appeared that it had been made “without any evidence or upon a view of th…”
- Cited — The British Council v Jeffery & Ors 2018-10-16
“… the facts as found or admitted fall one side or the other of some conceptual line drawn by the law is a question of fact: see, for example, Edwards v Bairstow [1956] AC 14 and O'Kelly v Trusthouse Forte plc [1984] QB 90. What this means in practice is that an appellate court with jurisdiction to entertain appeals only on question…”
- Cited — Revenue And Customs v Parry & Ors (Rev 1) 2018-10-16
“…t conclusion. Mr Rees took the Court in this connection to the speech of Lord Radcliffe, with whom Lord Tucker and Lord Somervell agreed, in Edwards v Bairstow [1956] AC 14, 36 where he preferred the formulation of the test as one whether “the true and only reasonable conclusion contradicts the determination.”…”
- Cited — Tager & Anor v Revenue And Customs 2018-07-20
“…it made findings of facts which fall to be corrected on Edwards v Bairstow grounds as erroneous in point of law (see Edward v Bairstow [1956] AC 14);…”
- Cited — The Commissioners for HMRC v Newey (t/a Ocean Finance) 2018-04-17
“…disturbed in the absence of an error of law (that is to say, on the familiar principles stated by the House of Lords in Edwards (Inspector of Taxes) v Bairstow [1956] AC 14).…”