Supreme Court clarifies VAT group rules in Prudential v HMRC

In Rachel Reeve’s Budget on 26 November 2025, the Chancellor set out plans, among other things a to tackle fraud within the Construction Industry Scheme (“CIS”) and announced a technical consultation “aimed at simplifying and improving the administration of the scheme”.

The recent Supreme Court judgment in King Crude Carriers SA and others v Ridgebury November LLC marks a significant development in English contract law.

The decision arose from an appeal against an arbitration award and addresses the fundamental question of whether the so called “deemed fulfilment” principle established by the 1881 Scottish Appeal case of Mackay v Dick exists in English Law.

In 2025, two High Court rulings, Apollo XI Ltd v Nexedge Markets Ltd and J&J Snack Foods Corp & ICEE Corp v Ralph Peters & Sons Ltd highlighted the strict nature of the duty of full and frank disclosure in without notice applications.

In both cases, the court discharged freezing injunctions after finding that the applicants had failed to meet the requisite standard of candour and fair presentation. These decisions serve as a clear reminder that when seeking urgent relief without notifying the other party, applicants must present all material facts - including those that may undermine their case, and ensure the court receives a balanced and accurate account.              

We sometimes receive enquiries from people asking whether it is possible to challenge a gift which has been made previously.

Of course, giving someone a ‘lifetime gift’ (i.e. where money or assets are given away during a person’s lifetime) can be an efficient estate planning mechanism but, may be subject to challenge if the donor lacked the capacity to make an informed choice or, has been unduly influenced into making a gift.

We usually see this within the scope of a gift of money or a property, but similar principals apply to collectables and other chattels.

Claims involving digital assets (including crypto assets) have become relatively common in the English Courts over the last five years and, as a result, the main areas of disagreement between the parties to those disputes are starting to emerge. A major theme is the methodology that should be applied to the tracing and following of digital assets.

Assets are typically placed in a trust for legitimate purposes, such as safeguarding wealth for future generations. However, arguments that a trust is in fact a “sham” created to hide the true ownership of assets often arise in the context of divorce litigation, bankruptcy/insolvency where a creditor seeks to argue that a trust is a pretence seeking to shield assets from creditors, or in estate disputes, where beneficiaries look to bring assets of the deceased back into an estate.

Where the identity of a person or group of people responsible for a fraud is not known, the courts have recognised that it may be appropriate in certain circumstances to allow a claimant to issue proceedings and obtain an injunction (both interim and final) against such individuals. These injunctions are referred to as “persons unknown injunctions” and they have become increasingly prominent in recent years.

Kingsley Napley is pleased to have acted for the successful claimants in proceedings before the High Court. The decision addresses a long-standing uncertainty in company law: if a provision of the Companies Act 2006 (“CA 06”) carries a criminal penalty for breach, does that mean no civil remedy is available? The court’s ruling sheds light on how such provisions should be understood and what consequences companies and directors may face when compliance falls short.

One of the most alarming aspects of falling victim to fraud is knowing where to start. It is very common for a victim to know almost nothing about what has happened, except for the fact that they have been scammed and the assets have gone. However, there are options available even if you don’t know the identity of the fraudster and the assets have, apparently, disappeared.

In a judgment handed down today, the Court agreed to appoint two additional conflict liquidators from Grant Thornton in the Travelex liquidation following an application made by Kingsley Napley’s client Rawbank S.A. (“Rawbank”).

Rawbank is the largest bank in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (“DRC”) and is an unsecured creditor of Travelex Bank Notes Ltd (“Travelex”) (part of the Travelex group of companies) for over £48m.

In cases of fraud, the first 24 to 48 hours can determine whether stolen assets are recoverable or not. Fraudsters are often sophisticated, moving funds through multiple accounts, jurisdictions, or even converting them into cryptocurrency within hours.  It is important to have a plan so that you understand the immediate steps you would take in the event of fraud, as delay can mean that your assets are dissipated and recovery becomes difficult.

We are seeing an increase in enquiries from both beneficiaries of trusts seeking the removal of trustees, and from trustees facing allegations that they have not complied with their duties. Sometimes it is clear that a matter has not been dealt with appropriately by a trustee, but on other occasions this stems from a general breakdown of the relationship between the parties.

Two recent publications, the Law Society’s International Data Insights Report 2025 and Queen Mary University’s (“QMU”) International Arbitration Survey, analyse statistics concerning international arbitration and reaffirm London’s leading role in global dispute resolution.

Being a trustee carries significant responsibilities and often involves managing high value assets and making complex decisions in the best interests of all the beneficiaries. While trustees generally strive to act with care and integrity, allegations of breach of trust can arise. Whilst such allegations can be stressful and complex, how trustees manage the trust and how they respond to allegations is crucial to maintaining trust, protecting the trust’s assets, and avoiding potential contentious proceedings.

The tips below should generally be adopted through the life of the trust and may avoid disputes arising in the first place.

This quarterly civil fraud update provides a summary of reported decisions handed down in the courts of England and Wales in the period of July - September 2025.

The United Arab Emirates (“UAE”) has joined in global efforts to improve transparency and compliance in the crypto sector by signing the Multilateral Competent Authority Agreement (MCAA) under the Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework (CARF). The framework is expected to be rolled out in UAE in 2027, with the first automatic exchanges of information with other tax authorities such as HMRC taking place in 2028.

The COVID pandemic was a difficult time for businesses,  and many legitimately relied on financial support provided through government schemes to help them to survive and retain employees. However, it is estimated by HMRC that circa £10billion was also lost as a result of incorrect applications and outright fraud.

At a time when a national broadcaster feels obliged to unpick (for the lawyer in us: alleged) misleading information from the leader of the free world, I almost choked on my breakfast when reading that we should also be concerned that some of us lawyers may be misleading the public too: 'No win, no fee' under fire: SRA vows to stop law firms hoodwinking consumers | Law Gazette Why now is a mystery; the term has been a feature of daytime TV advertising for decades!

As the global regulatory landscape continues to evolve, two major frameworks are set to reshape how crypto-assets are reported: the Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework (“CARF”) and the European Union’s Directive on Administration Cooperation in taxation (“DAC8”).

On 11 September 2025, the Supreme Court handed down its judgment in The Prudential Assurance Company Ltd v Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, a case that delves into the interaction between VAT group rules and the timing of taxable supplies. The decision has significant implications for businesses operating within VAT groups, particularly in relation to deferred consideration and success fees.