Abstract
Abstract Two recent English cases, Hartogs v Sequent1and Payne v Tyler2, provide helpful examples of the application of the guidelines in the Supreme Court decision in Pitt v Holt3for claims seeking to set aside voluntary transactions on the grounds of mistake where significant unexpected tax liabilities are incurred. The facts and quantum of the cases are quite different and demonstrate the potentially wide application of the Pitt v Holt guidelines, as well as the willingness of the English Courts to hear such claims and grant the relief sought. The cases also offer guidance on a number of practical points for potential claimants for claims based on a mistake, in particular on the issues of proper forum, the role of HMRC and the position adopted by fiduciaries as non-contesting parties to the claims.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
