Jerzy Wesolowski v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 31 July 2026
Neutral citation: [2026] UKFTT 1110 (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 the Appellant company was liable under regulation 13 HMDP for excise duty on 1,333.5 kg of hand rolling tobacco seized from its vehicle at Dover on 3 April 2017. The Tribunal found that, although physical possession at the duty point was with the driver, the company had de facto and/or legal control of the goods (through its employee actions, ownership/use of the vehicle, ferry/payment arrangements and use of the company CMR stamp) and therefore was “holding” the goods and was also “making the delivery” under reg 13. The appeal was dismissed and the company was held liable for the duty of £279,728.00.
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
Where employees act in the course of their employment and the employer has de facto or legal control over excise goods (e.g. contractual acceptance, ownership/use of the vehicle, payment of transport/ferry, identification as carrier), the employer may be regarded as “holding” those goods under regulation 13 notwithstanding that physical possession at the excise duty point was with an employee; such control can likewise support a finding that the employer was “making the delivery.”
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 obiter that, in suitable circumstances, an employee’s physical possession may be attributable to the employer as an alternative route to liability, and that witness statements from persons who did not attend the hearing should be given no weight.