Christian Peter Candy v The Commissioners for HMRC

Decision date: 10 April 2025

Neutral citation: [2025] UKFTT 416 (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

This appeal concerns Mr Christian Candy's claim for repayment of £1,920,000 SDLT which he said should have been repaid under s.44(9) Finance Act 2003 but could not be pursued in time. The First-tier Tribunal held that paragraph 34, Schedule 10 (with paras 34A/34B) operates as a statutory back-stop remedial gateway allowing repayment where other statutory remedies cannot be pursued, and that s.44(9)’s procedural requirement to amend a return does not preclude a separate Para 34 claim. The tribunal allowed Mr Candy’s Para 34 claim and dismissed HMRC’s refusal.

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

Para 34 of Schedule 10 (read with Paras 34A and 34B) can operate as a discrete, statutory back-stop remedy permitting repayment claims for overpaid SDLT where other statutory remedies (such as an in-time s.44 amendment) cannot be pursued; a procedural specificity in s.44(9) requiring amendment of the land transaction return does not oust Para 34 where its conditions are satisfied.

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 (by reference to Explanatory Notes and an HMRC Technical Note) that Parliament intended Para 34 to replace alternative legal actions and to provide a unified tribunal route for such overpayment claims, and that Para 34’s Case C classification and its four-year limit show Parliament intended it to be limited so as not to undermine ordinary time limits for other reliefs.