Nigel Doran discusses the successful outcome for M&G and Schroders of their ground-breaking claims for stamp duty refunds on in specie redemptions.
The recent combined High Court case, M&G Securities Ltd v IRC; Schroder Unit Trusts Ltd v IRC, is the latest in a growing line of cases since Pepper v Hart [1992] STC 898 in which reference to extrinsic materials has played a vital role in construing an ambiguous statutory provision so as to give effect to the evident or presumed intention of Parliament. The case is unusual in that the statements in Parliament by the Solicitor-General on the relevant stamp duty provision were held to be of no help (indeed, it was suggested that members of the House had not the faintest idea what the Solicitor-General was talking about!). By contrast, the report of a Board of Trade committee (the Anderson Committee), some of whose recommendations led to the enactment of the stamp duty provision in question, was critical in the court's assessment of
