BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[PlaneSailing]

Three judges ruled on Wednesday that parliament did not have the power to change “with such a retrospective effect” the “feed-in tariffs” paid to homes, businesses and communities for generating small-scale renewable electricity.

Industry and green groups hail solar victory - FT.com

Is this about retrospection from December to April?

Good grief.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Three judges ruled on Wednesday that parliament did not have the power to change “with such a retrospective effect” the “feed-in tariffs” paid to homes, businesses and communities for generating small-scale renewable electricity.

Industry and green groups hail solar victory - FT.com

Hi, and welcome to the forum.

There is a subtle distinction here. Parliament never intended (voted for) retrospective changes to tariffs. The Secretary of State tried to slip this in without parliamentary approval.

Nevertheless there are parallels.

The 1987 legislation, for which BN66 was supposedly a clarification, was not retrospective in that no-one received retrospective tax demands as a result of it. Parliament expressly intended that it should not have retrospective effect.

Whilst Parliament clearly intended that BN66 should have retrospective effect, when they voted for it, they were led to believe that it was just an extension of what Parliament had done in 1987.

In short, they "clarified" a non-retrospective law and made it retrospective.

[PlaneSailing]

Is this about retrospection from December to April?

Good grief.

The judgement makes for good reading

Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change v Friends of the Earth & Ors [2012] EWCA Civ 28 (25 January 2012)

In particular

"The true principle is that Parliament is presumed not to have intended to alter the law applicable to past events and transactions in a manner which is unfair to those concerned in them, unless a contrary intention appears. It is not simply a question of classifying an enactment as retrospective or not retrospective. Rather it may well be a matter of degree – the greater the unfairness, the more it is to be expected that Parliament will make it clear if that is intended."

which seems to imply that if Parliament puts in retrospective changes they better be clear about it. The Joint Committee on Human Rights certainly didn't think that was the case for us.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

which seems to imply that if Parliament puts in retrospective changes they better be clear about it.

That's why they were really crafty using the word "clarify".

The Government claimed they were merely clarifying an existing retrospective law, so therefore no big deal.

Of course, the big deal was that the existing law was not retrospective.

By sleight of hand, they introduced something that Parliament had never done before on such an unprecedented scale.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

PS.

The problem is that the courts don't care whether Parliament knew what it was doing or gave it sufficient careful consideration.

The fact is Parliament passed it and, as far as the courts are therefore concerned, it's now the law. End of.

The only topic up for debate is whether it's compatible with human rights and EU law.

[Disgusted of Coventry]

"Legislation will be introduced in Finance Bill 2008 to clarify, retrospectively, legislation introduced in 1987, which itself was retrospective, so that it has effect as intended."

I think the penny has finally dropped regarding those Padmore-related FOI requests.

[BrilloPad]

Some here might enjoy this thread :-

http://forums.contractoruk.com/gener...evade-tax.html

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I think the penny has finally dropped regarding those Padmore-related FOI requests.

Ironically it was none other than Tony Blair who pressed the then financial secretary Norman Lamont for categorical assurance that the "Padmore" legislation would not have a retrospective effect.

The 1987 legislation was all about stopping people making windfall claims for tax relief on the back of Padmore, not clobbering those who had already claimed it.

[screwthis]

That's why they were really crafty using the word "clarify".

The Government claimed they were merely clarifying an existing retrospective law, so therefore no big deal.

Of course, the big deal was that the existing law was not retrospective.

By sleight of hand, they introduced something that Parliament had never done before on such an unprecedented scale.

Is there not an argument that the law being unclear at the time is a big deal?

How can they expect a law to be complied with if they didn't take the time to write it clearly?
If it can be deemed ambiguous I would have thought that should be enough to prevent enforcement.

If there was a mistake on a parking ticket or the road markings were not clear you would have no trouble getting the ticket struck off.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Is there not an argument that the law being unclear at the time is a big deal?

How can they expect a law to be complied with if they didn't take the time to write it clearly?
If it can be deemed ambiguous I would have thought that should be enough to prevent enforcement.

If there was a mistake on a parking ticket or the road markings were not clear you would have no trouble getting the ticket struck off.

You are forgetting something.

HMRC used a time machine to go back to 1987 and make the law clear.

The unclear law you refer to never existed.

Is that clear?