Sally joined Morrisons as a tax litigation solicitor in March 2015. She is an experienced litigator, having qualified in 1993 with a top 10 City firm before leaving to work for HM Revenue & Customs (formerly HM Customs & Excise), to specialise in tax litigation. Sally has extensive experience in dealing with both indirect and direct tax disputes with HM Revenue & Customs and regularly represent clients before the First Tier and Upper Tier Tribunals. She has significant experience of judicial review proceedings as well as Alternative Dispute Resolution. Sally has represented clients in proceedings brought by the FCA and NCA .
Examples of work
Michael Fleming t/a Bodycraft and Conde Nast Publications
3 year capping litigation in which the House of Lords held that the three-year cap must be disapplied in relation to pre-implementation periods until an adequate prospective transitional period had been provided.
The Queen on the application of Millennium Cash & Carry Ltd (“MCC”)
HMRC detained in excess of £2 million of alcoholic stock from MCC’s warehouses using their powers under s139 CEMA 1979. MCC challenged the legality of the original and continuing detention. On the final day of the hearing HMRC conceded that the detention had been and remained unlawful and agreed to return the goods to MCC.
NCA v Azam
a landmark case in which the Court of Appeal determined that a person who was the subject of a property freezing order made under Part 5 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, who applied for the order to be varied so as to permit him to apply some of his assets which were the subject of the order in paying for his legal expenses, was under no specific burden of proof requiring him to prove that there were no other available assets which could be used for the relevant purpose, such that if he did not discharge the burden the application must fail.
Totel Ltd (Court of Appeal)
concerned whether the abolition by the Transfer of Tribunals Functions and Revenue and Customs Appeals Order 2009 (SI 2009 No.56) of a right of appeal against decisions of the FTT to the UTT in the course of “hardship” applications was lawful.