Get a Drip Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC

Decision date: 1 May 2025

Neutral citation: [2025] UKFTT 500 (TC)

Overall AI summary confidence: high

AI Notice: Any short overview, ratio decidendi summary or obiter dicta summary shown on this page is AI-generated, provided only to help users assess potential relevance more quickly, and may be wholly inaccurate. No liability is accepted for the accuracy of any such summary, regardless of any AI confidence rating shown. Users should check the underlying decision and obtain appropriate legal advice rather than relying on any summary.

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

Get a Drip Ltd appealed HMRC’s assessment that its IV vitamin drips and injectable booster shots were standard-rated for VAT. The Tribunal found on the balance of probabilities, based on representative patient samples and expert evidence, that the supplies were medical care the principal purpose of which was diagnosing, treating or protecting/maintaining health. The appeal was allowed for the sampled supplies as falling within the Schedule 9 Group 7 medical exemption.

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 credible medical expert evidence and representative clinical records show identifiable health disorders and that the supplies were appropriately provided to diagnose, treat or protect/maintain health, those supplies can meet the principal-purpose test for the Item 1, Group 7, Schedule 9 VATA medical-care exemption; CQC registration and inclusion of services within CQC-regulated "treatment of disease, disorder or injury" is supportive evidence but not by itself determinative.

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 that marketing labels such as "wellness" or prior inconsistent statements to HMRC do not necessarily determine VAT status when clinical records and expert medical evidence demonstrate a therapeutic purpose; it also noted that "well‑being" as a clinical target is vague and insufficient alone to establish the exemption without medical findings.