The scope of the new UK subsidy control regime, set out in the Subsidy Control Bill that is currently before parliament, differs little from the EU state aid regime, apart from its non-application to UK primary legislation. The question of whether a tax ruling is a ‘subsidy’ will therefore typically depend on whether it is ‘specific’ – and the answer to that question in a tax context involves applying effectively the same principles as are used to decide whether a tax ruling or tax rule confers a ‘selective advantage’ in EU state aid law. However, while its scope is similar, enforcement and remedies under the new UK regime will be very different to the position under the EU regime: in particular, a substantial enforcement gap is created by the absence of an independent body with powers to initiate investigations of non-published subsidies and the restrictive rules on standing.

Read the article.

Local Government analysis: The High Court dismissed a claim for recovery of tuition fees which the Secretary of State for Education (via the Student Loans Company) had paid to an Alternative Education Provider which enrolled students onto one particular course but registered them to the relevant awarding body for a different type of qualification. The case is of substantive significance as it clarifies the parameters of use of the Education (Student Support) Regulations 2011 (the Regulations) for recovering overpayments of fee loans. The judgment also clarifies the appropriate sanctions for failure to meet the requirements of course designation under DfE issued guidance entitled ‘Alternative Providers: Specific Course Designation. Guidance for Providers: Criteria and Conditions’ (the 2013 Guidance). The Secretary of State has lodged an appeal at the Court of Appeal.

The full article written by Imogen Proud, was first published by Lexis®PSL on 16 September 2021, and can be read here.

Imogen Proud considers the nature and scope of the right to education under the Human Rights Act 1998 (“HRA 98”).

Read the article.

Imogen Proud has produced an update of “Dealing with a human rights challenge – checklist” written by Eric Metcalfe.

This checklist provides a step by step guide to dealing with a challenge under the Human Rights Act 1998, including the defences of lawful interference with qualified rights and acting pursuant to legislation.

This was first published by LexisPSL Public law on 22nd July and can be read here.

In May, the EU General Court issued two further judgments in the run of cases on the application of EU state aid law to tax rulings by national authorities. The judgments confirm that, although the state aid rules can apply to rulings involving intra-group transfer payments, the Commission faces a high burden in showing that such rulings involve state aid. On the other hand, they also confirm that EU state aid rules potentially apply to any failure by the tax authorities to challenge complex tax avoidance schemes. Because EU state aid cases can still arise from the UK, UK tax advisers need to pay attention to these cases – and the principles they raise will also potentially carry over into the new UK subsidy regime.

Read the article.

Read the article.

1. The title of “Injunctions and Trusts” is broad. My plan is (i) to start with some history, (ii) then look at how the injunction jurisdiction can usefully be described today, (iii) then look at Proprietary Claims Constructive trusts and tracing, and (iv) then look at the meaning and effect of the example freezing order and recent judgments which have misunderstood this. (v) Our time is limited and I hope that we shall have some time for questions at the end. I will start with some history.

To read the lecture please click here.

This was an appeal to the Commercial Court on questions of law, arising in a London arbitration on cargo claims on bills of lading brought by the consignee and its insurers against the shipowners. The case concerned the counterclaim by the shipowners for costs incurred in Spain by the ship’s managers in successfully defending claims brought against them by cargo insurers in the Spanish court, for which they were not the responsible carrier. The counterclaim was brought by the shipowners for their managers’ own loss.

Please click here to read full article by Steven Gee QC, Christiana Pyrkotou and Aimilia Efstathiou.