VAT
VAT
The sums sought in the pleadings were not said to be sought subject to applicable VAT. The sum sought in closing submissions was said to be plus applicable VAT (although no amendment to the pleadings was sought at that time – or point taken by DBS about the recoverability of VAT without such an amendment). DBS does not dispute that there is both a contractual and a statutory requirement for sums to be charged by TCS on its Charges (including those subject to the Court’s order in due course). DBS’s only point is that entitlement to VAT is not pleaded, and the amendment to plead VAT is very late, and there is no good reason for its lateness.
In contrast to the question of interest under the 1998 Act, it is plain that notwithstanding the lateness of the amendment, there is no conceivable prejudice to DBS and none is advanced. It is in accordance with the overriding objective to permit the amendment and the sums ordered to be paid will be subject to payment by DBS of the applicable VAT.
- Heading
- Section 1
- DBS’s contended error
- TCS’s Contended Error
- Qualifying Debt
- Ousting of the Act
- Interest did not start to run
- Interest should be remitted pursuant to Section 5 of the 1998 Act
- Interest under Section 35A of the 1981 Act
- CCN 041 Counterclaim
- VAT
- Costs
- The Legal Principles
- Analysis
- Interim Costs
- Conclusions
![HT-2020-000448 - [2024] EWHC 2025 (TCC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_yJUntHA.png)