The detailed overview of Green J`s jurisprudence, taking into account the Woolwich principle, and its careful application of the principle to the facts of this case, help clarify the parameters of this aspect of the Restitution Act. It is likely to assist those seeking to endorse public bodies, particularly where there is a dispute over the public or private nature of the transaction. In the first phase of the litigation, the court looked at the circumstances in which the police could incriminate the SPS. In the second phase of the litigation, the court considered the club`s right to repay the amounts paid to the police for services for which the police were not entitled to collect fees. This section takes into account this second judgment (“judgment”), particularly with respect to the club`s right of principle in Woolwich. Although two of these cases dealt with the importance of ownership in slightly different contexts, lord Justice Clerk and Lord Patrick approached the matter pragmatically and considered what was left of the available after the order was handed over. If there was a fundamental principle of Scottish law that the property of the heir invoked by the President could only reside in the title holder, those two cases must have been the subject of a different decision. It is interesting to note that at Gibson v. Hunter Home Designs Ltd. 1936 s.C. 23 Lord Emslie pointed out at page 27: (3) If Woolwich can apply in principle, if the payer must pay for the service provided by the recipient (see.B. Cases such as Waikato and South of Scotland Electric), this should apply, let alone if there is no such requirement (for example.
B the unduly calculated performance of the club for the establishment of an operational police job that should have been free). (2) In the case of Deutsche Morgan Grenfell Group Plc/Her Majesty`s Commissioners for Inland Revenue et ors , the House of Lords examined the reimbursement of taxes paid under a law declared illegal by the European Court of Justice since then. , Lord Hoffmann made a difference between the payment of “taxes and similar items” to which the Woolwich principle applied and the “private transactions” he did not have. However, he also found that the Woolwich principle and restitution are not mutually exclusive because of an error. In [45-46], Lord Hope summarized his understanding of Lord Goff`s judgment at Woolwich and considered the distinction between private transactions and taxes by Lord Goff in a nutshell. Lord Hope concluded that the term “taxes and other similar taxes” was not specific enough to define the extent of a derogation from a general right of recovery. To , Lord Hope explained that all applications for ultravires easily fall into the Category of Lord Goff “Similar Taxes”.  Lord Walker rejected the proposal, Woolwich concerned only cases where there was recovery legislation and specified that Woolwich was not limited to stricto sensu taxes.
I think those remarks also apply to this case. Second, with respect to their property rights, I do not see a fundamental difference between the position of the holder of an absolute provision, considered a mere agent or security, and the holder of such an act, who has made available a reservation against the price.