Reliable Shipping Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC

Decision date: 12 January 2023

Neutral citation: [2023] UKFTT 45 (TC)

Overall AI summary confidence: high

AI Notice: Any short overview, ratio decidendi summary or obiter dicta summary shown on this page is AI-generated, provided only to help users assess potential relevance more quickly, and may be wholly inaccurate. No liability is accepted for the accuracy of any such summary, regardless of any AI confidence rating shown. Users should check the underlying decision and obtain appropriate legal advice rather than relying on any summary.

Short overview

This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.

AI confidence in this short overview: high

This case concerned two Finance Act 1994 assessments totalling £320,531.50 and the appellant’s applications that HMRC should have issued a hardship certificate or accepted lesser/no security. The Tribunal held FA94 (not VATA) governs the security/hardship test, that the appellant bore the burden of proving hardship with credible contemporaneous evidence, and that the appellant failed to do so. The hardship applications were dismissed and the assessments remain subject to payment or acceptable security.

Ratio decidendi

This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.

AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: high

The binding ratio is that FA94 applies to these import duty/IVA assessments and requires the Tribunal to assess whether HMRC’s decision to require security (or accept none/less) was reasonable; the appellant bears the burden of proving that providing security would cause hardship and must produce credible, contemporaneous evidence, and the Tribunal may consider whether inability to provide security is self‑inflicted.

Obiter dicta

This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.

AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium

The judgment observes that principles from VAT hardship cases may inform the FA94 assessment but do not displace FA94’s statutory focus on security; access to justice concerns do not justify a strained statutory construction to avoid security requirements; and hypothetical or unarranged asset disposals or borrowings are generally not “immediately or readily available” to show hardship.

Source links

Judgment page Judgment PDF Judgment XML