In this post, Neal Chandru, an Associate in the Tax team at CMS, comments on the case of DCM (Optical Holdings) Ltd (“DCM”) v Commissioners for his Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (“HMRC”) [2022] UKSC 26 – handed down on 12 October 2022.

The issues on appeal before the Supreme Court were whether HMRC:

1. were, on the facts of the case, constrained by the statutory time bar in s 73(6) of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 (“VATA”); and
2. can deny a self-assessment claim for payment of a VAT credit while HMRC validates the claim.

The background facts which

Hearings in the Supreme Court are now shown live on the Court’s website.

On Tuesday 24^th and Wednesday 25^th January 2023, the court will hear the case of Republic of Mozambique (acting through its Attorney General) v Privinvest Shipbuilding SAL (Holding) and others. The issue in this case is whether the Court of Appeal erred in its approach to section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996 in finding that one of Mozambique’s claims were ‘matters’ outside the scope of the relevant arbitration agreements, when giving judgment at [2021] EWCA 329.

Also on Wednesday, the Court will

Explosions heard near Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant: IAEA

In this post, Eilidh Douglas, Senior Associate in the ICE Disputes team at CMS, previews the case of Republic of Mozambique v Privinvest Shipbuilding SAL (Holding) and Ors, which was heard by the UK Supreme Court on 24 and 25 January 2023.

Factual Background

The appellant is the Republic of Mozambique (“the Republic”). The case relates to the development of the Republic’s economy and in particular, the opportunities afforded by its coastline and territorial waters for tuna fishing and gas exploitation.

Through three special purpose vehicles (the “SPVs”) wholly owned by the Republic, it entered into three contracts (the “Contracts”)

On appeal from: [2019] EWCA Civ 1999

Foxpace Limited (“Foxpace”), the Fourth Respondent, owned a property known as Nash House in London. This appeal concerns an oral agreement between Foxspace and Mr Barton, the First Respondent, regarding the Nash House. In the High Court it was held that Foxspace agreed to pay Mr Barton £1.2 million if he introduced a purchaser for Nash House who bought it for £6.5 million. The £1.2 million represented deposits and other expenses that Mr Barton had lost on two previous attempts to buy Nash House.

Mr Barton introduced to Foxspace a purchaser who attempted

Santos reported 40 of them.

In fact, his campaign accounted for roughly half of all expenses by all campaigns that cost exactly $199.99 — a statistical improbability.

The rarity of campaign expenses falling so close to the legal limit for retaining receipts has raised concerns that the Santos campaign’s disbursements were “deliberately falsified,” a complaint from the Campaign Legal Center alleges. Major questions about Santos’ campaign financing remain unanswered, including the source of $700,000 that the New York congressman ostensibly loaned to his campaign despite questions about his personal finances.

“This was a multi-thousand dollar operation,” said Adav Noti, a

In this post, Luke Arnold, Associate in the Real Estate team at CMS, previews the case of Rakusen v Jepson and Ors, which is due to be heard by the UK Supreme Court on 26 January 2023.

Factual Background

The respondent in this appeal, Mr Rakusen, is the leasehold owner of a flat in North London. In 2016, he granted a tenancy of the flat to Kensington Property Investment Group (“Kensington”) which permitted the subletting of individual rooms in the flat. Kensington later entered into separate agreements with the Appellants (Jepson and Ors) granting them each possession of one room.