Deutsche Morgan Grenfell v IRC (Monica Chowdry, 16 May 2005)

Of course it's just a tree. What does it look like ?

RDG online
Restitution Discussion Group Archives

Restitution
front page

What's new?

Another tree!

Archive front page

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2007

2006

2008

2009

Another tree!

<== Previous message Back to index Next message ==>

Sender:	Monica Chowdry
Date:	Mon, 16 May 2005 18:23:51 +0100
Re:	Deutsche Morgan Grenfell v IRC

Illegitimate due to the ECJ's judgment in Metallgesellschaft - the legislation is (was) incompatible with the Community rules on freedom of establishment. I do not think the ECJ went as far as to say that the whole tax (or rather ACT regime) was invalid - it didn't need to, but the denial of the election was in breach of Community law. Whether or not this makes the denial tortious, I'll leave to a tort lawyer to answer!

On Mon, 16 May 2005 18:18:16 +0100 Robert Stevens wrote:
The ambiguity here is in the phrase 'illegitimate legislation'. Illegitimate why and how? What legal rule is it that the court is using to strike down the legislation? What is the effect of this invalidation? Does it render the entire tax invalid? Does it make the denial of the choice wrongful (i.e. tortious)? I think I am going to need a more concrete example before being persuaded that a case like DMG v IRC is not more appropriately characterized as a claim in tort for compensation for loss.

----------------------
Monica Chowdry
Lecturer
School of Law
King's College London
Strand
London WC2R 2LS
Direct Line: 020 7848 1110

<== Previous message Back to index Next message ==>

" These messages are all © their authors. Nothing in them constitutes legal advice, to anyone, on any topic, least of all Restitution. Be warned that very few propositions in Restitution command universal agreement, and certainly not this one. Have a nice day! "

»
»
»
»
»

For editorial policy, see here.
For the unedited archive, see here.
The archive editor is Steve Hedley.