Screen Shot 2015-11-18 at 4.55.47 PM

I read this case over the w/e at work. There are several issues with it, especially, or particularly, the (SC) decision.

First issue, the SC went back to the 1571 Act 13 Eliz. 1 c5 and the interpretation thereof, for an interpretation of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976.

The analysis is convoluted, but more relevantly, both unnecessary and inappropriate due to the Interpretation Act 1999 s6 and supporting authority.

R v Ireland [1998] AC 147, 158 (HL): states; ‘statutes are always speaking’, and therefore statutes should be interpreted in accordance with current [as opposed to historical] legal norms.

My second issue with this case was that the case considered ‘franchisees’ as creditors. How, exactly, do franchisees qualify as ‘creditors’? Under Tax law, Income Tax Act 2007 sCC9(2)(a) royalties paid for a franchise would qualify as ‘income’ and thereby incur a taxable income.

That is not a creditor. So this entire case seems fatally flawed from the get-go.

*Note

After some research on the case, the franchisees were creditors because they were awarded damages of $800K in the Tort of deceit.

Therefore, because they were awarded damages, the $800K was a ‘judgment debt’ and they therefore fulfilled the legal definition of ‘creditor’.

So this objection to the case can be removed. The first objection to the (SC) judgment remains however. The (CA) judgment was far more on point than the (SC).

Screen Shot 2016-04-11 at 10.03.20 AM

 

Advertisements