- Cited — Ardeshir Naghshineh v The Commissioners for HMRC 2022-01-13
“… FTT and by the general principle that trading losses should be permitted to be offset against other profits in the same year, citing R v IRC ex p Unilever plc [1996] STC 681 at 690. HMRC do not dispute the principle, at a high level of generality, but they dispute Mr Naghshineh’s entitlement to sideways relief for the years in issu…”
- Considered — MP, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Health And Social Care 2020-12-03
“…wath JSC. Lord Carnwath considered earlier decisions, including the decision of the Court of Appeal in R. v Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte Unilever Plc [1996] STC 681. At paragraph 37 of his judgment Lord Carnwath referred to the ‘principles of legitimate expectation derived from an express or implied promise …’, thus recogn…”
- Considered — Heathrow Hub Ltd & Anor, R (On the Application Of) v The Secretary of State for Transport 2020-02-27
“…nwath JSC. Lord Carnwath considered earlier decisions, including the decision of the Court of Appeal in R v Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte Unilever Plc [1996] STC 681. At paragraph 37 of his judgment Lord Carnwath referred to the “principles of legitimate expectation derived from an express or implied promise …”, thus recogn…”
- Cited — Dickinson & Ors v Revenue And Customs 2018-12-18
“…hout adequate justification, on a lawful promise or practice (at [68]). The proper test, which emerged from the revenue cases such as R v IRC ex p Unilever plc [1996] STC 681 (“Unilever”), was whether the decision was so unfair as to amount to an abuse of power; and in such a case there was no question of the Court deferring to the …”
- Cited — Pathan & Anor v Secretary of State for the Home Department 2018-10-02
“…call what I said in my judgment in Talpada at paras. 59-65. Although, as Sir Thomas Bingham MR observed in R v Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex p. Unilever plc [1996] STC 681 (in the passage cited at para. 60 of my judgment in Talpada), “the categories of unfairness are not closed and precedent should act as a guide not a cage”, it …”
- Cited — Nesiama & Ors, R (On the Application Of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Rev 1) 2018-06-14
“…gitimate expectation. In Talpada, Singh LJ quoted the well-known observation of Sir Thomas Bingham MR in R v Inland Revenue Commissioners ex parte Unilever plc [1996] STC 681 at page 690f: “The categories of unfairness are not closed and precedent should act as a guide not a cage”. However, in this context, only fairness which amoun…”
- Considered — Talpada, R (On the Application Of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department 2018-04-24
“…The Appellant relies upon the principle of substantive fairness as expressed in R v Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte Unilever Plc [1996] STC 681 and considered in an immigration context by the Upper Tribunal in R (Mohibullah) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] UKUT 561 (IAC) at [65-69].…”
- Cited — City Shoes (Wholesale) Ltd & Ors v The Commissioners for HMRC 2018-03-02
“…th the well-known principles expounded by the Court of Appeal in the Unilever case (R v Commissioners of Inland Revenue ex parte Unilever plc (1996) 68 TC 205, [1996] STC 681).…”