Grattan Plc (No 2) v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
Decision date: 3 May 2011
Neutral citation: [2011] UKFTT 282 (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 had decided to refer two sets of questions to the CJEU (a pre‑1 January 1978 VAT question and additional compound‑interest jurisdiction questions). HMRC applied for a stay of transmission of the compound‑interest reference pending its application for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal, and the tribunal, in light of the Court of Appeal decision in Wilkins and the interests of justice, granted a limited stay suspending effect of the compound‑interest reference until the Upper Tribunal decides permission to appeal; the pre‑1978 reference will proceed. If permission to appeal is granted, further stay applications may be considered by the Upper Tribunal.
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
A referring tribunal may suspend the effect of its decision to refer questions to the CJEU where an appellate process raises a real issue as to the correctness of the decision to refer and justice requires that appellate consideration occur before transmission; the existence of an application for permission to appeal together with relevant appellate authority on analogous questions can justify a discretionary stay.
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 observed that applications for permission to appeal and any resulting appeals are not merely "satellite litigation" but are a discrete appellate process distinct from the merits before the CJEU, and that immediate transmission of a reference that might later be withdrawn would be inappropriate where an appellate court may decide the referring tribunal erred in ordering the reference.