Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
George Mackenzie (instructed by Town Legal LLP) for the Appellant William Hanbury (instructed by Leeds Legal Services) for the Respondent ____________________
In order to help with clarity, consistency and flow I will use shorthand terms (as follows) for: the apparent nature of the relationship ("ANR") ; actual occupation ("AO") ; an exclusive entitlement to occupation ("EEO") ; newly created shelf companies ("NCSCs") ; and the true nature of the relationship ("TNR") . I will use also a shorthand phrase ( "Effective-Avoidance Intent" ) to mean this: the position where an arrangement is intended to be effective in producing an outcome of effectively avoiding a person's statutory obligations (in this case, NDR liability).
Artificiality does not of itself mean sham; but it is relevant to sham, as is its denial
The "Neuberger Formulation": 'no intention of honouring obligations or enjoying rights'
While the court is astute to detect shams, there is a 'strong presumption' of regularity
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.