Giles Bunting v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 23 May 2024
Neutral citation: [2024] UKFTT 431 (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
The First-tier Tribunal allowed Mr Bunting’s appeals, quashing HMRC’s joint-and-several liability decision under regulation 10 HMDPR and cancelling the Schedule 41 excise wrongdoing penalty. The Tribunal found that the farm owner who rented Unit 1 to an unauthorised occupier did not physically possess the 2,537,600 duty‑unpaid cigarettes and was not “involved in the holding” nor “concerned in … keeping” them because he did not know and should not have known they were excise goods.
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
A property owner’s mere ownership of premises, retention of a key or right of entry does not amount to “holding” or being “involved in the holding” of goods for regulation 10 HMDPR; liability under regulation 10(2) (and the parallel phrase “concerned in … keeping or otherwise dealing with” in paragraph 4(1) Schedule 41 FA 2008) requires knowledge or that the owner should have known the goods were excise goods. “Possession” is to be understood in its ordinary, physical sense.
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 (obiter) that physical possession should be assessed by ordinary language and that ownership, a key or entry rights do not suffice to establish possession. It also rejected HMRC’s proposed “greater than reasonable risk” test as uncertain and onerous, preferring a knowledge/should‑know standard.