- Applied — BT Plc v The Commissioners for HMRC 2023-12-04
“…d Reed’s analysis in Investment Trust Companies was applied and developed the following year in Prudential Assurance Co Ltd v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2018] UKSC 39,[2019] AC 929 (“Prudential”). Lord Reed, Lord Hodge and Lord Mance explained at [69]-[77] that where money is paid by mistake a benefit is thereby conferred by…”
- Cited — Granville Technology Group Limited (in liquidation) & Ors v LG Display Co Limited & Anor 2023-08-16
“… restitution succeeded, although the Supreme Court has since held that it ought not to have done (Prudential Assurance Co Ltd v Revenue & Customs Commissioners [2018] UKSC 39, [2019] AC 929 at [79]). However, in departing from the decision in Sempra Metals, the Supreme Court stated expressly that nothing in Prudential was intended t…”
- Cited — Jazztel Plc v The Commissioners for HMRC 2022-02-25
“… 2 at [15], Littlewoods Ltd v Revenue and Customs Commissioners[2017] UKSC 70, [2018] AC 869 and Prudential Assurance Co Ltd v Revenue and Customs Commissioners[2018] UKSC 39, [2019] AC 929.…”
- Cited — Telefonica UK Ltd v The Office of Communications 2020-10-29
“…On 25 July 2018 the Supreme Court handed down judgment in Prudential Assurance Co Ltd v Revenue and Customer Commissioners [2018] UKSC 39, deciding that compound interest is not available in unjust enrichment claims for restitution of money payments.…”
- Cited — Lloyd v Google LLC 2019-10-02
“…See also paragraph 47 of the judgment of the UK Supreme Court in Prudential Assurance v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2018] UKSC 39, where it was said that awards of user damages “are based on wrongdoing and are designed to compensate for loss”.…”
- Followed — Jazztel Plc v HM Revenue and Customs 2019-07-24
“… on HMRC’s application for permission to appeal on change of position in the FII proceedings. Following the decision of the Supreme Court in Prudential v. HMRC [2018] UKSC 39, (delivered after the decision which is being appealed before us) HMRC decided not to pursue any appeal against Marcus Smith J’s decision on issue 10; and it w…”