Restitution Discussion Group Archives
| Sender: |
Michael Rush |
| Date: |
Tue, 11 May 2004 14:56:33 +0100 |
| Re: |
"At the expense of" – again |
The result also seems to contradict the decision of Lord
Hope in Customs and Excise Comr's v McMaster Stores.
That case concerned the ability of a receiver to recover
overpaid VAT which had been collected from third parties and paid over
to the Revenue.
The receiver was successful in his action because (a)
it was assumed that the money paid to the Revenue came at the company's
expense, and (b) restitution would not result in the company being unjustly
enriched because the recovered sum would have to be distributed to its
secured and unsecured creditors.
Michael
In message <40A0BC81.14341.477711B@localhost>
Benedict White writes:
It seems more than slightly rum to
me, it seems to do grave damage to the principle of preferential creditors.
The interesting question will be what
can the preferential creditors do about it. Clearly a mistake has been
made which cost them money.
<== Previous message Back to index Next message ==>
»
»
»
»
| For
editorial policy, see here. For the unedited archive, see here. The archive editor is Steve Hedley. |
