Purposive approach meaning

This table sets out, in reverse date order, significant cases in the evolution of the Ramsay anti-avoidance principle. It does not attempt to cover every decision touching on the principle. The focus is on the present: more recent rulings from lower courts are likelier to appear, as they indicate the latest judicial approach... For an overview of the Ramsay principle, see Practice Note: Ramsay as a guide to statutory construction. For comprehensive tracking of current (and recently completed) tax litigation, see the: Tax—cases tracker... Case name and citation Who won in the highest court? Facts in a nutshell Quote(s) from the judgment Comment The Tower One St George Wharf Limited [2025] EWCA Civ 1588 (judgment date 10 December 2025) — The government (in the Court of Appeal) — SDLT step-up scheme — the court held that ‘claim’ should be interpreted purposively, mirroring Rossendale’s treatment of ‘the person entitled to possession’...

Fasano v (1) Reckitt Benckiser Group Plc (2) Reckitt Benckiser Health Ltd [2024] EAT 7 What are the practical implications of this judgment? This decision makes plain that EqA 2010, s 109 allows no room for a ‘purposive’ interpretation, even where that leads to the undesirable result that a claimant has no remedy for discriminatory treatment. The EAT affirmed the employment tribunal’s rejection of an indirect age discrimination claim brought by a retired employee who was denied payment under a long-term incentive plan (LTIP) after the employer’s parent company changed the rules to promote staff retention. That said, the EAT found the tribunal’s approach to agency under EqA 2010, s 109 to be perverse and unsustainable. On orthodox common law principles, there was no sound footing for the tribunal’s conclusion that the parent company was acting as the employer’s agent so as to fix the employer with liability...

In this issue: Key DR developments Claims and remedies Costs and funding Injunctions Litigation Scottish civil litigation Dates for your diary Useful information LexTalk® Dispute Resolution: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts Key DR developments CPR updates Online Civil Money Claims pilot—CPR PD 51R: HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) has told stakeholders by email that where both sides start without representation and a defendant then appoints a lawyer, the change is dealt with wholly within the digital service using the notice of change function to formally note the lawyer’s role, so no paper submission should be made. This procedural revision is not yet visible in CPR PD 51R, but it will be added to the Practice Direction in due course. Guidance and consultations CATJ publishes updated AI guidance for judicial office holders: The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary (CATJ) has issued updated guidance on Artificial Intelligence, replacing its April...

Dassault Aviation SA v Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Co Ltd [2024] EWCA Civ 5 What are the practical implications of this case? This decision will interest anyone concerned with the canons of contractual construction. Those who draft or advise on non-assignment clauses will find it especially pertinent. Where an absolute bar on assignment is intended, wording must be explicit and unambiguous. Accordingly, drafters seeking to preclude transfers must choose language that leaves no room for implication. In Dassault Aviation, the Court of Appeal confirmed that it is inadequate to contend that a party should have appreciated, or in fact did appreciate, that assignment was a likely result of its conduct where the transfer is not the party’s own act but instead arises by operation of law. The Court’s stance can fairly be characterised as a strict black-letter approach. That black-letter reading is particularly stark when contrasted with the purposive approach adopted at first instance, where the judge concluded that, if the contracting party knew assignment would follow from its...

This Practice Note This Practice Note sets out how post-termination restrictions (restrictive covenants) should be construed. It addresses timing, the need for exactness and clarity, giving words their ordinary, natural sense, the weight of context and the parties’ intentions (a purposive reading), and the contra proferentem principle. It also considers when the corporate veil might be lifted, whether a clause will be re-written, and severance. The construction of post-termination restrictions follows the general rules used for any contractual term. The baseline is that a restraint of trade is usually unlawful, and such a restriction will only be reasonable, and lawful, if it goes no further than is strictly required to protect an employer’s legitimate business interests (see Practice Notes: Restraint of trade in employment and Legitimate business interest). Accordingly, restrictions should be tailored to the employer’s particular business and the employee’s duties, and expressed in the clearest terms. Two further general observations apply: so far as possible, a common-sense approach should be...

This Practice Note explores when a person is treated as an employee and the consequences that flow from that employment status. Key concepts For employment law purposes, someone supplying work or services to another may fall into one of the following: a worker (see Practice Note: Worker status), in which case they will enjoy certain rights under employment law an employee, which attracts additional employment law rights (eg unfair dismissal, maternity leave and redundancy rights) neither a worker nor an employee (ie the person is self-employed, or an independent contractor), in which case they will have no rights under employment law Anyone who holds employee status also meets the statutory definition of a ‘worker’, for the purposes of the statutory protections extended to that broader class of working individuals. However, not every worker will satisfy the definition of ‘employee’. Consequently, even where a person does not meet the test for employee status, they may nonetheless qualify as a ‘worker’. ...

The Ramsay principle (or Ramsay doctrine) Lexis+® UK Tax thanks Nigel Doran of Macfarlanes LLP for his input on an earlier version of this Practice Note. The views set out remain those of Lexis+® UK Tax. This Practice Note has since been reviewed and updated by Aparna Nathan, KC, Devereux Chambers. The Ramsay principle denotes a judicial approach to construing legislation in cases concerning tax avoidance. It originated with the House of Lords’ landmark ruling in WT Ramsay in 1981. The House of Lords restated the approach in BMBF v Mawson in 2004, and, as a result, some decisions describe the principle by reference to BMBF (or Mawson) rather than Ramsay. For consistency, this Practice Note, and related Practice Notes, use the term ‘Ramsay principle’. In broad outline, the Ramsay principle can be summarised as: consider the legislation—what did Parliament intend in choosing that wording? consider the facts—should a particular transaction, viewed realistically, be treated as part of a wider scheme? then,...