McKeever v. Northernreef Insurance Co SA [2019] Lloydâs Rep IR 535 Under the assumption that the insurers have been granted a leave of appeal by the Court of Appeal, please write a report to the legal team working on the case indicating which points can be taken at the appeal level. In your report, you must make reference to the relevant legal authorities and explain how they can be of assistance in developing legal arguments on behalf of the insurers.
Sample Solution
.3 Koefed: a loose use of the abuse concept Neither based on VAT directives nor Treaty freedoms, the Koefed decision is an interpretation of the Merger Directive, and in particular the anti-abuse provision of the Merger Directive contained in Article 11. Of relevance to the purpose of this paper is the second part of the decision which dealt with the doctrine of abuse of Community law. It started its analysis from Article 11 of the Merger Directive, which provided that a Member State: âMay refuse to apply or withdraw the benefit of all or any part of the provisions⦠where it appears the merger⦠has at its principal objective or one of its principal objectives tax evasion or tax avoidanceâ It then went on to emphasise that in line with the general principle that abuse of rights is prohibited, Article 11(1)a of the Directive states that individuals: âmust not improperly or fraudulently take advantage of provisions of Community law.â , along with stating that the application of Community law cannot cover transactions carried out not in the context of commercial operations, but âsolely for the purpose of wrongfully obtaining advantages provided for by Community lawâ. In this instance it is apparent the Court adopted a rather flexible use of concepts which it had been using in its anti-abuse case law. Although Halifax formed a appeared to accept the prohibition of abuse of EU law as a general principle, the Court did not characterise the prohibition as such>
.3 Koefed: a loose use of the abuse concept Neither based on VAT directives nor Treaty freedoms, the Koefed decision is an interpretation of the Merger Directive, and in particular the anti-abuse provision of the Merger Directive contained in Article 11. Of relevance to the purpose of this paper is the second part of the decision which dealt with the doctrine of abuse of Community law. It started its analysis from Article 11 of the Merger Directive, which provided that a Member State: âMay refuse to apply or withdraw the benefit of all or any part of the provisions⦠where it appears the merger⦠has at its principal objective or one of its principal objectives tax evasion or tax avoidanceâ It then went on to emphasise that in line with the general principle that abuse of rights is prohibited, Article 11(1)a of the Directive states that individuals: âmust not improperly or fraudulently take advantage of provisions of Community law.â , along with stating that the application of Community law cannot cover transactions carried out not in the context of commercial operations, but âsolely for the purpose of wrongfully obtaining advantages provided for by Community lawâ. In this instance it is apparent the Court adopted a rather flexible use of concepts which it had been using in its anti-abuse case law. Although Halifax formed a appeared to accept the prohibition of abuse of EU law as a general principle, the Court did not characterise the prohibition as such>
