Value Catering Ltd Craven Gilpin & Sons(1982) Ltd Craven Gilpen & Sons Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
Decision date: 18 May 2011
Neutral citation: [2011] UKFTT 329 (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 case concerned whether various supplies of cold food by the Appellant were "in the course of catering" for VAT purposes and therefore excluded from zero-rating. The Tribunal held, after applying a non‑exhaustive list of factual factors, that each disputed supply (stand delivery including Farnborough, general food delivery, and pre‑ordered Harrogate picnic platters) was a supply of food in the course of catering and thus not zero‑rated. The appeal on the preliminary legal classification was dismissed; issues of quantum, time limits and enrichment were reserved.
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 decision turns on a holistic, objective assessment of factual indicia to characterise a supply as "in the course of catering": relevant factors include connection to an event, whether food is made to order, degree and manner of presentation, extent of on‑site preparation remaining, provision or availability of cutlery/crockery/equipment, delivery arrangements (even if separately charged), presence or absence of waiter service, and whether a meal is provided as a complete offering. These factors can show that goods are supplied together with ancillary services and so constitute catering rather than a zero‑rated supply of goods.
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 (not essential to the outcome) that deferred payment terms and the monetary value of the supply are irrelevant to whether a supply is in the course of catering; likewise, self‑description (e.g. calling oneself a "caterer") and invoicing format do not determine legal characterisation. It also noted that optional availability of ancillary items can nonetheless affect the nature of the overall supply even if the optional items are not taken up.