Alan Wood & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 20 February 2026
Neutral citation: [2026] UKFTT 265 (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 appeal concerned whether parts of a riverside Property — a public towpath and the riverside area separated by a low fence and wall — formed "garden or grounds" of the dwelling for SDLT s116(1)(b) purposes and whether s116(1)(c) applied. The Tribunal held the towpath was not part of the grounds because of regular public use and physical separation, but on balance the riverside was part of the grounds; s116(1)(c) did not apply. As a result the Property did not consist entirely of residential property and the appellants' mixed-use amendment succeeded.
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 fact-sensitive weighting of established factors and held that land subject to substantial public intrusion and clear physical separation from the dwelling (here the towpath) does not form part of the garden or grounds under s116(1)(b), whereas land that is for the sole use of the occupier and can be used or altered by them (here the riverside) can be part of the grounds. It further held that the single freehold estate cannot be treated as an interest subsisting for the benefit of itself for s116(1)(c).
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 endorsed using an expanded list of factors (drawn from prior authorities) to assess whether land forms part of the grounds, emphasising that the factors must be weighted according to the facts of each case; it also observed that concurrent rights of others over land do not automatically preclude it being part of the grounds, though the degree of intrusion is decisive.