WM Morrison Supermarkets Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 11 December 2025
Neutral citation: [2025] UKFTT 1542 (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
Morrisons appealed VAT assessments for sales of cool-down rotisserie chickens (CDRCs). The First-tier Tribunal held that CDRCs were excluded from zero-rating because, while not heated for the purpose of enabling consumption hot, they were kept hot after heating and supplied in packaging that retained heat / was designed for hot food (Note 3B(c) and (d)), dismissed Morrisons' legitimate-expectation challenge, and dismissed the appeal. The Tribunal also held it had jurisdiction to consider the legitimate-expectation/public-law ground.
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's binding reasoning includes that Note 3B should be read objectively and purposively: packaging that demonstrably retains heat or is objectively designed to address problems of hot cooked food (for example to prevent leakage or retain heat) falls within Note 3B(d) and can bring a supply within the exclusion from zero‑rating; the Note 3B/3C tests are objective and purposive; and the FTT may have jurisdiction to consider public‑law/legitimate‑expectation arguments where the statutory appeal provision (s.83(1)(p) VATA) is sufficiently wide and the issue is integral to determining the assessment.
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 noted that parliamentary materials (Hansard, consultation documents) can assist purposive interpretation where the statutory language is difficult or ambiguous; it described the Zeman approach to FTT supervisory/public‑law jurisdiction as persuasive but open to critique; and it discussed (but did not adopt) a de minimis approach to trivial heat retention by ordinary packaging as a possible interpretative gloss.