scholarly journals Innovation, informed consent, health research and the Supreme Court: Montgomery v Lanarkshire – a brave new world?

2017 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 435-452 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean V. Mchale
Keyword(s):  
Informed Consent ◽  
Clinical Research ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Innovative Treatment ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Future ◽  
English Law

AbstractThe Supreme Court decision in Montgomery v Lanarkshire ([2015] UKSC11) has been hailed as a landmark not least because the Court enshrines the doctrine of informed consent formally into English law for the first time in relation to medical treatment. This paper explores the decision in Montgomery. It examines what its implications may be in the future for the consent process in relation to health research and innovative treatment and whether it may prove a watershed moment leading to changing dialogues and expectations in relation to consent. First, the paper explores the concept of ‘informed consent’ in clinical research as seen through international, Council of Europe and EU instruments. Second, it considers how English law currently governs the provision of information to research participants in the context of clinical research. It questions whether such an approach will be sustainable in the future. Third, it discusses the decision of the UK Supreme Court in Montgomery v Lanarkshire and asks what might be the impact of this Supreme Court decision in the health research context. It asks whether Montgomery may result in new approaches to consent in health research and innovative treatment.

scholarly journals The Contractual Interpretation of Tipping J

2016 ◽  
Vol 47 (2) ◽  
pp. 227
Author(s):  
Matthew Barber
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
The Other ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Comprehensive Examination ◽  
The Future ◽  
Lower Courts ◽  
The Way

In the Supreme Court decision of Vector Gas Ltd v Bay of Plenty Energy Ltd, Tipping J put forward an approach to contact interpretation that, while indebted to that of Lord Hoffmann, was expressed differently and promoted the use of evidence of prior negotiations. Despite not gaining the support of any of the other sitting judges, this approach was swiftly taken up in the lower courts and, until recently at least, seems to have been accepted as representing New Zealand law. This article attempts a comprehensive examination of Tipping J’s approach. It concludes that, while coherent in principle, the detail of the approach is flawed in a number of ways, especially the way in which evidence of subsequent conduct is assumed to work. The future of Tipping J’s approach is considered.

scholarly journals Restitusi Kelebihan Pembayaran Pajak Bea Perolehan Hak Atas Tanah dan Bangunan (Studi Kasus Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 1154/B/PK/PJK/2017)

Notaire ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 333
Author(s):  
Alya Adelina
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Future

Duty on the Acquisition of Land and Building Rights or BPHTB is a tax on the acquisition of rights to land and building. It is likely that in the future there will be an overpayment of BPHTB; in the case study of the Supreme Court Decision Number 1154/B/PK/PJK/2017, there was an overpayment of non-payable tax in 2009 by PT Bumi Sawit Permai to KPP Pratama Prabu Mulih which had just been filed at in 2012. There was a difference in authority in returning the BPHTB overpayment, considering that Law No. 20 of 2000, Amendment to Law Number 21 of 1997 on Duty on the Acquisition of Land and Building Rights, which classified BPHTB under Central Tax, was revoked and declared no longer valid since January 1st, 2011, replaced by Law No. 28 of 2009 on Regional Taxes and Retribution (UU PDRD) that classified it under Regional Tax. According to article 23 paragraph (1), (1a) and (2) Law Number 20 of 2000 on Amendment to Law Number 21 of 1997 on Duty on the Acquisition of Land and Building Rights, it was KPP Pratama Prabumulih’s obligation to return the overpayment of the non-payable tax. Keywords: Tax Overpayment; BPHTB; Tax Office.Bea Perolehan Hak Atas Tanah atau BPHTB adalah pajak atas perolehan hak atas tanah dan bangunan. Tidak menutup kemungkinan bahwa dikemudian hari terjadi kelebihan pembayaran BPHTB, dalam studi kasus Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 1154/B/PK/PJK/2017 terjadi kelebihan pembayaran pajak tidak terhutang pada tahun 2009 oleh PT Bumi Sawit Permai kepada KPP Pratama Prabu Mulih yang baru diajukan pada tahun 2012. Terjadi perbedaan kewenangan dalam pengembalian kelebihan pembayaran BPHTB, mengingat undang-undang No 20 Tahun 2000, Perubahan Atas Undang-Undang Nomor 21 Tahun 1997 Tentang Bea Perolehan Hak Atas Tanah Dan Bangunan dicabut dan dinyatakan tidak berlaku lagi sejak 1 januari 2011 yang awalnya BPHTB diklasifikasikan dalam Pajak Pusat, kemudian diganti dengan Undang-Undang No 28 Tahun 2009 tentang Pajak Daerah dan Retribusi Daerah (UU PDRD) menjadi pajak Daerah. Berdasarkan pasal 23 ayat (1), (1a) dan (2) Undang-undang Nomor 20 Tahun 2000 Tentang Perubahan atas Undang-Undang Nomor 21 Tahun 1997 tentang Bea Perolehan Hak Atas Tanah dan Bangunan, maka sudah menjadi kewajiban KPP Pratama Prabumulih untuk mengembalikan kelebihan pembayaran pajak tidak terhutang tersebut. Kata Kunci: Kelebihan Pajak; BPHTB; Kantor Pelayanan Pajak.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document