![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE] | |
England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> GSTS Pathology LLP, R (on the application of) v Revenue & Customs [2013] EWHC 1823 (Admin) (21 June 2013) URL: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2013/1823.html Cite as: [2013] EWHC 1823 (Admin) |
||
[New search]
[Context
]
[View without highlighting]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Strand London WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
| THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF | ||
GSTS PATHOLOGY LLP |
||
| SERCO LTD | ||
| GUY'S AND ST THOMAS' NHS FOUNDATION TRUST | Claimants | |
| v | ||
| COMMISSIONERS FOR REVENUE & CUSTOMS | Defendant |
____________________
Application dealt with on written submissions.
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
MR JUSTICE LEGGATT:
GSTS
for the year to 31 December 2012. Audited accounts for that year will not be published until July or September 2013. The claimants submit that it would be preferable to refer in the published judgment to financial information which is both audited and in the public domain already, taken from the accounts for the previous year to 31 December 2011 which were also in the evidence before the court. This will ensure that accurate figures are given in the judgment.
GSTS
' business of the proposed change of tax treatment of its supplies. It is said that publication of this information will undermine
GSTS
' ability to bid successfully for new contracts and its customers' perception of its financial viability.
"... there are a number of documents within the Document Bundle (which runs to several lever arch files) which are commercially sensitive. Please ensure that care is taken to ensure that these documents are not disclosed to or seen by third parties. We understand that they will not appear on the court file and will not be available for inspection."
GSTS
. Even if not central to my reasoning, the current financial situation of
GSTS
is certainly relevant and important to my assessment of the detriment which the change of tax treatment would, if implemented, cause to
GSTS
and its shareholders. The extent of such detriment is material both to the substantive question of whether the change of tax treatment would be unfair to the taxpayer and to the question whether, unless an interim injunction were granted, the claimants would suffer irreparable injury. It is not suggested that the claimants will be prejudiced by the inclusion in the published judgment of information taken from the latest accounts of
GSTS
a few months before the audited accounts are in any event published. Nor do I accept that it would be preferable to refer instead to the audited accounts for the previous year to 31 December 2011, to ensure that accurate figures are given. In assessing the current financial situation of the company, the accounts for the most recent year, even though not yet audited, are in my view the best available information.
GSTS
' business of the proposed change of tax treatment is of commercial sensitivity to
GSTS
. However, the fact that the proposed tax change potentially will, if implemented, cause serious damage to the business of
GSTS
was the basis on which an interim injunction was sought and is central to the reasons for granting an injunction. I can understand that the claimants would prefer competitors and customers not to know that, if the proposed tax treatment of its supplies is implemented,
GSTS will be unable to continue to trade for long unless its business is restructured in a way that will itself have certain detrimental consequences. However, it is not suggested that this information should be omitted from the judgment, and I am not persuaded that material additional prejudice is likely to be caused by mentioning the specific facts on which the conclusion is based. By contrast, I think it important in the interests of open justice to explain the facts which justify the conclusion.