Legal News

Court of Appeal sounds warning over inadequate pleadings in GLO litigation (Prudential Assurance v Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs)

Published on: 21 April 2016
Published by: LexisPSL
  • Court of Appeal sounds warning over inadequate pleadings in GLO litigation (Prudential Assurance v Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs)
  • Practical implications
  • What issues did the Court of Appeal highlight?
  • What should statements of case in a GLO contain?
  • Court details

Article summary

Dispute Resolution analysis: The Court of Appeal has been very critical of both parties’ pleadings in a long standing tax dispute in which a group litigation order (GLO) was made. The court noted that if it had in the past been acceptable for statements of case in this type of litigation to be set out in general terms, this would no longer be tolerated. It was clearly unsatisfactory for the claim to have reached the appellate process when the lack of adequate pleading meant that the issues were not adequately defined, such that the Court of Appeal had to spend the first day and a half of the appeal deciding what points were open to the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) to argue. As a result, the court excluded a number of issues from the scope of the appeal. or take a trial to read the full analysis.

Popular documents