Gregory Sewell v The Commissioners For HMRC

Decision date: 22 August 2024

Neutral citation: [2024] UKFTT 773 (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

Mr Sewell sought a VAT refund of £16,093.82 for construction works to a static caravan after HMRC telephone advice that the works were zero‑rated; HMRC later rejected the claim as outside the DIY refund scheme. The First‑tier Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appellant’s freestanding public law/legitimate expectation complaint and struck the appeal out, while noting on the evidence the caravan had been constructed and that HMRC’s advice was wrong on the pleaded case but not deciding substantive entitlement.

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 tribunal held that it does not have judicial review jurisdiction to enforce a public law duty or to grant relief for a legitimate expectation concerning a taxpayer’s entitlement to a refund where no statutory appeal route exists; where HMRC have no legal discretion to allow a refund, the First‑tier Tribunal lacks power to grant that refund.

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 judge observed but did not decide arguable points about the effect of the certificate of lawfulness and distinctions in Schedule 8 between "buildings" and "caravans," expressed suspicion about HMRC’s categorical exclusion of caravans, noted the appellant’s own evidence that he might have proceeded regardless (affecting reliance/detriment), and commented sympathetically on the appellant while criticising HMRC’s failure to apologise.

Source links

Judgment page Judgment PDF Judgment XML