§ Mr. Peter BottomleyTo ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) on what grounds the Inland Revenue lost the Woolwich case in the High Court;
(2) how many judges in (a) the High Court, (b) the Court of Appeal and (c) the House of Lords did not agree with the original Inland Revenue contention that there was no double taxation in the Woolwich case;
(3) on what grounds the Inland Revenue won the Woolwich case in the Court of Appeal.
§ Mr. MaplesThe High Court held that the Building Societies Regulations 1986 went beyond the scope of the 143W enabling powers, to the extent that they sought to bring into account payments made by building societies in transitional periods to 6 April 1986. The Court of Appeal reversed that decision.
The House of Lords dismissed by a majority of four to one the Woolwich's principal argument in its appeal against the Court of Appeal's decision and confirmed that the enabling legislation did authorise the Inland Revenue to made regulations covering transitional periods to 6 April 1986. But the Lords held unanimously that there was no power to apply 1985–86 tax rates to payments in the transitional periods.
Over the course of the litigation seven judges found that the enabling legislation authorised the Revenue to make regulations bringing into charge payments of interest in transitional periods to 6 April 1986; two found that it did not.