Hare Wines Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 7 June 2022
Neutral citation: [2022] UKFTT 176 (TC)
Overall AI summary confidence: high
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
Hare Wines Ltd appealed HMRC's 11 August 2020 refusal of AWRS approval. The First-tier Tribunal held the Refusal Decision unreasonable for legal and factual errors, including HMRC's treatment of EN2002's nine "fit and proper" criteria as requiring that each be met absolutely, and rejected HMRC's primary finding that the director had deliberately understated another person's role. The Tribunal set aside the refusal, ordered it to cease to have effect, and directed HMRC to review the application in light of the Tribunal's findings (facts as at review; law/policy as at 11 August 2020).
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: medium
The decision establishes that in AWRS approval decisions the decision-maker must assess the relevant facts and EN2002 criteria together "in the round" rather than treating each of the nine fit-and-proper criteria as independently and obligatorily satisfied; and that a Tribunal may determine primary facts and overturn an HMRC refusal under s16(4) FA94 where the decision rests on material factual or legal errors such that no reasonable decision-maker could have reached it.
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 indicates (obiter) that imposing conditions under s88C(3)/reg 7 presupposes the applicant is fit and proper — conditions can mitigate identified risks but cannot create personal characteristics like honesty or diligence — and that failures in due diligence and record-keeping fall on a spectrum of regulatory responses (support, sanctions, or refusal) rather than automatically justifying refusal.