McGeown Transport Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 27 September 2023
Neutral citation: [2023] UKFTT 854 (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 arose from an excise duty assessment of £1,640,936 after 6,800,400 cigarettes were found in a McGeown vehicle at Dover and McGeown Transport Ltd appealed on grounds of lack of knowledge. The Tribunal, bound by the CJEU and Court of Appeal decisions in Perfect, held that liability under Article 33(3)/Regulation 13 attaches to the person in physical possession (the holder) at the duty point irrespective of knowledge or legal/beneficial interest, and struck out the original appeal. A late application to amend the pleaded holder to "McGeown Haulage" was refused as having no real prospect of success given contemporaneous evidence that McGeown Transport was the holder.
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
The binding ratio is that Article 33(3) of Directive 2008/118 and Regulation 13(1) impose excise liability on the person in physical possession (the holder) of excise goods at the duty point regardless of that person’s knowledge of the goods or any legal/beneficial interest; domestic tribunals must follow prior CJEU and binding Court of Appeal authority when deciding strike-out and merits issues; very late amendments to pleadings must show more than a merely arguable case and may be refused where unsupported by contemporaneous documents or inherently implausible.
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 the purported CMR and related documents exhibited multiple indicia of fabrication and so had little probative value, and commented that parties cannot evade binding CJEU/CoA authority by reframing longstanding pleaded cases at a late stage; delay and lack of supporting contemporaneous documentation weigh strongly against permitting late amendments.