.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.
Please reach out to customer services at +44 (0) 330 161 1234 or 'customer.services@lexisnexis.co.uk' for further assistance.
