(1) In Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Lincoln City Borough Council and golds [1998] UKHL 38; [1999] AC 349, the House of Lords, found that a “private transaction,” even if it was carried out by a public body, is not subject to the Woolwich Principle. In a nutshell, on page 381G-H, Lord Goff distinguished between “taxes and similar taxes” and payments made in ordinary private transactions. In light of this legislation, Green J concluded that the club`s restitution was a matter of Woolwich`s principle. He did so for the following reasons (at [72-77] of the judgment): the company had committed to asserting that the double taxation rules were illegal. She paid for the tax. She won and recovered the amounts paid, but the income refused to pay the interest on the payments. The company attempted to challenge the decision through a judicial review. Hero: Under the common law, the ultraviruses required were, as of right, refundable without the payer having to assert an error of law. “I think the justice behind Woolwich`s assertion is clear. Let`s take this case. The proceeds made an illegal tax claim. The taxpayer is convinced that the claim is illegal and must decide what to do. It is confronted with revenue, armed with the coercive power of the state, including what, in practice, is a power to collect punishable interest.

Moreover, as a serious company that, among many real estate credit companies, questions the legality of the debt, it rightly fears damage to its reputation if it does not pay. It therefore decides to pay first and states that it will challenge the legality of the claim in litigation. Now that Woolwich has won this dispute, the product claims that he was never obliged to repay the money, and that he only repaid it as a matter of grace. Since there is no applicable status to settle the position, revenues must maintain this position in the common law. In this brutal form, the position of the revenues will seem to me to be unsustainable as a matter of common justice; and injustice is compounded by the fact that, as Nolan J. 1 W.L.R. 137, 140 stated, it provides the proceeds with a massive interest-free loan as a result of its illegal action. I`m going to go from special to general. Take all taxes paid by the citizen on the basis of an illegal claim. The common justice system seems to demand payment of the tax, unless there are particular circumstances or a political principle that require something else; “The maintenance of taxes improperly demanded by the state is particularly repugnant, because one of the most fundamental principles of our law – enshrined in a famous constitutional document, the Bill of Rights 1688 – is that taxes should not be collected without the authority of Parliament; this principle can only be fully implemented if the refund of taxes required in connection with an illegal claim can be applied definitively. Second, where revenue is a tax debt, this requirement is implicitly supported by the state`s powers of coercion and can have quite unpleasant economic and social consequences (as in this case) if the taxpayer does not pay.

In any case, it seems strange to punish the good citizen, whose natural instinct is to trust income and pay taxes when asked to pay. Lord Slynn said: “I do not think that the fact that Parliament has passed comprehensive legislation in this area does not mean that at this stage in the evolution of the legislation, a common law recovery principle cannot or should not be found.