Woolwich Equitable Building Society v. Inland Revenue Commissioners [1993]
[1993] AC 70 · House of Lords · United Kingdom
Restitution Lawrestitution-lawRestitution LawRestitution of ultra vires taxes
Issue
Whether a taxpayer has a prima facie right to restitution of payments made under an ultra vires demand, without proof of mistake or compulsion.
Held
The House of Lords held that payments made under an ultra vires demand are recoverable as of right, and the taxpayer does not need to prove mistake or compulsion.
Exam use
In an exam, introduce Woolwich Equitable Building Society v. Inland Revenue Commissioners with the citation only if you can remember it accurately; otherwise use the case name and court, then focus on the rule and application. A strong answer should say what Woolwich Equitable Building Society v. Inland Revenue Commissioners decided, why the facts mattered, and how the authority helps resolve the new facts. Avoid treating the case as a decorative reference. Use it to prove a doctrinal step in Restitution of ultra vires taxes, then move quickly to analysis.
Summary
Woolwich Equitable Building Society v. Inland Revenue Commissioners is included in the Restitution Law case database because it gives students a concrete authority for Restitution of ultra vires taxes. The reported citation is [1993] AC 70, and the decision is associated with House of Lords. In revision, treat the case as a way to connect the legal issue to a real dispute rather than as an abstract rule. The key exam move is to state the holding, identify the fact pattern that made the rule matter, and then decide whether a new problem question should apply, distinguish, or limit the authority.
Facts
The material factual signal for Woolwich Equitable Building Society v. Inland Revenue Commissioners is: A building society paid tax under a statutory instrument that was later held ultra vires; it sought restitution of the tax paid before the invalidation. Students should read the linked source and turn that signal into a short fact table: parties, transaction or public-law setting, procedural posture, conduct in dispute, and the fact the court treated as decisive. This prevents vague case-dropping. In an answer on Restitution Law, use the facts to explain why Restitution of ultra vires taxes was live, then compare the problem facts against the facts in the case before stating any conclusion.
Procedural History
Woolwich Equitable Building Society v. Inland Revenue Commissioners is reported as a decision of House of Lords. The procedural route should be checked against the linked source before formal citation. For study notes, record whether the decision was an appeal, judicial review, trial judgment, tribunal ruling, or constitutional/application proceeding, because that posture affects how confidently the rule can be used.
Issue
Whether a taxpayer has a prima facie right to restitution of payments made under an ultra vires demand, without proof of mistake or compulsion.
Held
The House of Lords held that payments made under an ultra vires demand are recoverable as of right, and the taxpayer does not need to prove mistake or compulsion.
Ratio Decidendi
Where a public authority demands and receives payment under an ultra vires instrument, the payee is entitled to restitution as of right, subject to defences.
Obiter Dicta
Check the linked source for concurring, dissenting, or obiter observations before quoting this case. If the case includes non-binding reasoning, use it as persuasive support rather than as the core rule.
Reasoning
For reasoning, start with the ratio: Where a public authority demands and receives payment under an ultra vires instrument, the payee is entitled to restitution as of right, subject to defences. Then read the source and separate three things: the legal test, the facts used to apply that test, and any policy or institutional reason the court gave. This structure makes Woolwich Equitable Building Society v. Inland Revenue Commissioners easier to use in essays and problem questions. In Restitution Law, the case should be compared with related authorities on Restitution of ultra vires taxes; if the jurisdiction, statute, or procedural posture differs from the exam problem, explain that limit explicitly instead of treating the authority as automatic.
Plain-English Explanation
Plainly, Woolwich Equitable Building Society v. Inland Revenue Commissioners is a case to use when a Restitution Law answer needs an authority on Restitution of ultra vires taxes. Do not just list it. Explain the problem the court had to solve, the rule or holding it used, and the fact that made the result persuasive. That turns the case from a memorised name into evidence for your legal analysis.
Essay-Ready Explanation Generator
Version 1 of 4
Reference to Woolwich Equitable Building Society v. Inland Revenue Commissioners ([1993] AC 70) strengthens a Restitution Law answer because the case reflects the principle that Where a public authority demands and receives payment under an ultra vires instrument, the payee is entitled to restitution as of right, subject to defences. Applied to a problem question, the case should be used after identifying the issue as Whether a taxpayer has a prima facie right to restitution of payments made under an ultra vires demand, without proof of mistake or compulsion. The stronger essay move is to connect the material facts to the court's holding, then explain whether the present facts support the same conclusion or justify distinguishing the authority.
Underlying Concepts
restitution-law
Restitution Law
Restitution of ultra vires taxes
case authority
exam application
Key Passages
Verify exact wording in the linked source before quoting.
Significance
Woolwich Equitable Building Society v. Inland Revenue Commissioners is significant for LawConquer users because it supplies a named authority for Restitution of ultra vires taxes in Restitution Law. The case can anchor a paragraph, support a rule statement, or provide a contrast point when another authority points the other way. Its practical value is strongest when the student links the holding to the material facts and then explains whether the present problem is analogous or distinguishable.
Related Cases
No related cases listed.
Exam Tips
In an exam, introduce Woolwich Equitable Building Society v. Inland Revenue Commissioners with the citation only if you can remember it accurately; otherwise use the case name and court, then focus on the rule and application. A strong answer should say what Woolwich Equitable Building Society v. Inland Revenue Commissioners decided, why the facts mattered, and how the authority helps resolve the new facts. Avoid treating the case as a decorative reference. Use it to prove a doctrinal step in Restitution of ultra vires taxes, then move quickly to analysis.
Revision Checklist
Name the issue before discussing facts so the marker sees the legal question immediately.
State the holding in one sentence, then use the ratio to explain why the court reached that result.
Use the citation and jurisdiction to show why this authority matters for the problem you are answering.
Pair this case with one supporting or contrasting authority if the question tests limits, policy, or exceptions.
Problem Question Use
Use Woolwich Equitable Building Society v. Inland Revenue Commissioners in a problem question by matching the factual trigger to the new scenario. If the fact pattern aligns with A building society paid tax under a statutory instrument that was later held ultra vires; it sought restitution of the tax paid before the invalidation., apply the ratio and explain the likely result. If a crucial fact, jurisdiction, statute, or procedural posture differs, distinguish the case and use it as a boundary rather than a controlling answer.