Corach International Transport Ltd v Directors of Border Revenue
Decision date: 8 August 2022
Neutral citation: [2022] UKFTT 272 (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
This case concerns Corach International Transport Ltd’s application for restoration of a lorry seized by Border Force after 42kg of cocaine was found; the Border Force reviewer had refused restoration on the basis Corach was complicit. The Tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that the drugs were likely concealed in the load before collection and that Corach had no involvement or knowledge, and held the review decision was flawed for relying on a complicit-finder the Tribunal rejected. The Tribunal set aside the review decision and directed Border Force to carry out a fresh review informed by the Tribunal’s factual findings.
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 Tribunal treated its role as (a) making primary findings of fact where necessary, (b) assessing whether the decision-maker considered the correct factors, and (c) intervening only where the reviewer could not reasonably have arrived at the decision reached; it held that where the reviewer’s decision depended on a finding of complicity that the Tribunal has rejected, a fresh evaluative judgment by Border Force is required. The Tribunal also indicated that showing a decision would inevitably have been the same is a high bar for non-intervention.
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 commented that Border Force restoration policy as expressed may be opaque and could be usefully redrafted to avoid apparent inconsistencies; it also observed that absence of formal written checks or contract paperwork is relevant but not determinative of complicity, and that financial hardship ordinarily requires more than mere loss of the vehicle to amount to “exceptional hardship.”