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.
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.
Raising the bar: UK Supreme Court clarifies the requirements for HMRC to issue Follower Notices
On 2 July 2021, the Supreme Court delivered its judgment in R (on the application of Haworth) v HMRC  UKSC 25, finding unanimously in favour of the taxpayer and upholding the Court of Appeal’s decision to quash the follower notice issued to him.
The Danish Supreme Court decides the Fidelity case
The Fidelity case concerned claims brough by three undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS) for the repayment of Danish withholding tax on dividends received from companies resident in Denmark between 2000 and 2009. The Supreme Court rejected the claims on the grounds that the Fidelity UCITS did not fulfil the conditions for the exemption provided by Danish law.
A yellow card for footballers and their agents……let’s bring in another match official
There has been long running tension between HMRC and the way that footballers and their agents are remunerated. As the Professional Footballers’ Association wade into the debate, Helen McGhee discusses the problems arising from agents’ fees and image rights.