.png)
.png)
A mouthwatering judgment served by the Court of Appeal in a case concerning hot sandwiches
KEY POINTS
- Are toasted sandwiches and those with a hot filling standard-rated?
- Pimblett subjective test was wrong; it should have been objective.
- Principle of fiscal neutrality had been breached by not applying the correct law.
- But it did not give Sub One the right to share in the windfall profit of others.
It is commonly believed that judges are out of touch with ordinary life; a belief that is often illustrated by the apocryphal exchange between a judge and a barrister after a witness has just referred to The Beatles:
“Who are The Beatles?”
“I believe they are a popular beat combo m’lord.”
Now I may well be doing Lord Justice McCombe a disservice but I doubt that he regularly eats at Subway. I also initially doubted ...
Alternatively, you can register free of charge to read a limited amount of subscriber content per month.
Once you have registered, you will receive an email directing you back to read this item in full.
