Suing Unnamed Defendants or Persons Unknown: Cameron v Hussain 
Article originally published in Civil Justice Quarterly, Volume 37 Issue 4 2018
The Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) permit proceedings against unnamed defendants. This is available where wrongdoers conceal their identities, such as on the internet, or hit and run drivers. Under the Sixth Motor Insurance Directive, compulsory insurance is on the vehicle. The insurers’ responsibility is in respect of civil liabilities of any driver whosoever, including when there is no right of indemnity under the policy. In Cameron v Hussain, on appeal to the Supreme Court, the victim has the number plate, and there is insurance of that vehicle by identified insurers. The case in the Court of Appeal overlooked art.18 of the Directive, which requires a direct right of action for the victim against insurers. The dissenting judgment agreeing with the court below: (1) misinterprets the Directive, the CPR and s.151 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, (2) disregards the legislative public policy underlying them, (3) is founded on considerations which are mistaken, and (4) reaches a deeply unsatisfactory result. There should be, and is, a general principle under the CPR that courts will do what they can to allow substantive rights to be determined and enforced. This underlies the established procedures in internet cases and for injunctions. It engages the overriding objective, enabling the courts to do good justice.
An Assessment to Tax is never ‘stale’, but it might be out of date: HMRC v Tooth
This article briefly discusses the key points arising out of the decision of the UK Supreme Court in HMRC v Tooth  UKSC 17. The case considered (1) whether a discovery assessment could become “stale” and (2) the meaning of the phrase “deliberate inaccuracy”.
VATA 1994 s.47, Agency, Onward Supply Relief, & Double Taxation
On 12 July 2021, the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (“FTT”) released its decision in Scanwell Logistics (UK) Limited v HMRC  UKFTT 261 (TC), rejecting the taxpayer’s claim for onward supply relief (“OSR”).
Whilst OSR is now limited, post-Brexit, to goods imported into Northern Ireland for onward supply to the EU, the FTT’s discussion of agency under section 47 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 (“VATA”) is of broader interest.
The case serves as a reminder of the significant financial consequences that can result from errors in tax planning, as Scanwell was ultimately held liable for £5.7 million in unpaid import VAT despite the fact that the imported goods almost immediately left the UK (which, if properly planned, could have meant Scanwell was relieved from liability to import VAT).
Draft Finance Bill 2022—tax avoidance measures
Helen McGhee, senior associate at Joseph Hage Aaronson LLP, considers the draft Finance Bill 2022 clauses published on 20 July 2021 in relation to tax avoidance and recent updates to the tax avoidance regime.
Getting Closer: A Global Minimum Tax on Corporations
On 1 July 2021, US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen announced that countries representing over 90% of global GDP had agreed to a global minimum tax on corporations (“GMCT”). The GMCT seeks to put a floor on tax competition on corporate income through the introduction of a minimum corporate tax of at least 15%. Whilst certain elements give rise to positive expectations, some caveats should be noted. Much will depend on (1) the outcome of future political negotiations and (2) the detail of the drafting at international and national levels.
The DBKAG & K (CJEU) decision: an opportunity for investment funds?
On 17 June 2021, the European Court decided the joint cases K (C-58/20) and DBKAG (C-59/20) regarding whether the supply of certain services constituted the “management of special investment funds”, benefiting from the VAT exemption enshrined in Article 135(1)(g) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC.