London & Thames Haven Oil Wharves Ltd v Attwool [1967] 2 All ER 124

Facts

  • London & Thames Haven Oil Wharves Ltd received a one-time payment as compensation for the temporary loss of the use of part of its jetty, which was damaged due to another party’s negligence.
  • The payment was intended to cover the lost earnings during the period when the jetty could not be used.
  • There was no permanent damage to the jetty; the loss of use was for a fixed, limited period.
  • The dispute centred on whether this compensation payment should be treated as capital (affecting the asset value) or as income (replaceable business earnings) for accounting and tax purposes.

Issues

  1. Whether compensation received for temporary loss of use of a business facility should be classified as capital or income for tax and accounting purposes.
  2. Whether the "long-term benefit" to the recipient or the nature of what was surrendered determines this classification.
  3. How the case should be distinguished from previous decisions such as Glenboig Union Fireclay Co Ltd v IRC.

Decision

  • The Court of Appeal held that the compensation payment in this case was to be treated as income, not capital.
  • The reasoning was that the jetty suffered only temporary loss of use rather than permanent damage or impairment.
  • The payment was a substitute for lost earnings during the interruption, not for any lasting reduction in the asset's value.
  • The court distinguished this situation from cases in which payments compensated for permanent loss of a business asset, specifically referencing Glenboig Union Fireclay Co Ltd v IRC, where payment was classified as capital due to permanent loss.

Legal Principles

  • Compensation for temporary loss of use of business assets is income if it replaces earnings lost during the downtime, not capital value.
  • The "long-term benefit" test examines whether the compensation relates to a permanent impairment of business facilities.
  • Payments related to permanent loss or destruction of a business asset are to be classified as capital.
  • The nature of the benefit for the recipient and the permanency of the loss are critical for proper classification.
  • The rules established apply to similar cases, such as temporary closures for repairs being treated as income, while non-restorable losses potentially attract capital treatment.
  • Classification of such payments directly affects tax liabilities and timing.

Conclusion

The case established that compensation for temporary loss of business facilities should be treated as income, not capital, where there is no permanent impairment to the asset, formalizing the “long-term benefit” test as the key criterion for classification in tax and accounting contexts.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal