James David Wood & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC

Decision date: 11 March 2026

Neutral citation: [2026] UKFTT 370 (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 appeal concerned whether a house and an annex formed two dwellings for multiple dwellings relief (MDR) on SDLT at the completion date (23 August 2021). The tribunal applied the multifactorial Fiander approach and found the annex had sufficient physical features (kitchen/bathroom facilities, separate lockable external access, independent heating controls, fuse box and water stop) to be suitable for use as a single dwelling. The appeal was allowed and HMRC’s closure notice seeking additional SDLT was rejected in respect of the annex.

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 applied an objective, multifactorial Fiander-style test: whether, judged by its physical attributes at the effective date, the part of the building had sufficient privacy, self-sufficiency and security to be “suitable for use as a single dwelling” under para 7(2)(a) of Schedule 6B FA 2003. Physical features such as separate lockable external access and independent heating/electrical/water controls together with kitchen and bathroom provision can support a finding of a separate dwelling even where there is a single title and no separate postal address or council tax banding.

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 tribunal indicated that absence of a separate title, postal address, council tax banding or separate meters is not determinative against MDR and that minor post-completion measures (e.g. privacy film, blinds, additional locks) or realistic tenancy arrangements may be considered within the multifactorial assessment.

Warning

- The chunk contains substantial repetition of legislative text and authorities which made extraction of unique points necessary; otherwise none.

Source links

Judgment page Judgment PDF Judgment XML