UT-2024-000123 - [2025] UKUT 00360 (TCC)

Mr Moser submitted that this Ground is without merit. The FTT correctly concluded that the Company’s EU argument is conclusively determined by Littlewoods Limited which establishes that statutory interest satisfies the requirements of EU law, specifically the principle of effectiveness. The Company has no EU law right to additional interest and the issue must be determined solely by reference to UK law.

Section 84(8) was repealed, subject to savings and transitional provisions to preserve accrued rights. It was replaced by s. 85A which satisfied the principle of effectiveness.

The Company’s reliance on Emblaze for the proposition that it had an accrued EU law right to interest is misguided. In that case, the VDT’s jurisdiction had been engaged before 1 April 2009. Moreover, whether or not the Company had an accrued EU law right to interest is irrelevant in circumstances where the Company did not satisfy the conditions under section 84(8) and it had a right to statutory interest which itself satisfies the principle of effectiveness (relying on Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation v RCC [2021] UKSC 31).

Lipton v BA CityFlyer added nothing to the Company’s argument: the FTT decided the EU law issues correctly by reference to the correct principles of EU law. A Marleasing interpretation would concern the interpretation of domestic law intended to implement EU directives and rights derived therefrom, not interpretation of, for instance, national procedural rules whereby effect is given to a claimant’s directly effective rights derived from general principles of EU law.