A C Rosbottom v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs

Decision date: 4 November 2009

Neutral citation: [2009] UKFTT 294 (TC)

Overall AI summary confidence: medium

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: medium

This appeal concerned two £250 HMRC penalties for using rebated red diesel in a road vehicle; the appellant, a farmer, admitted buying bio-diesel without receipts but denied knowingly using red diesel. The tribunal accepted his credible evidence that a minor trace of red diesel in fuel tests resulted from contaminated bio-diesel beyond his knowledge or control. The tribunal found that amounted to a reasonable excuse, allowed the appeal, quashed the penalties and awarded costs to the appellant.

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 tribunal applied the statutory reasonable-excuse concept and held that where an appellant credibly shows on the balance of probabilities that a very small contamination of red diesel in a road vehicle arose from inadvertent contamination in the supplied fuel beyond the appellant’s knowledge or control, that can constitute a reasonable excuse to avoid a civil penalty. The tribunal also indicated that absence of receipts does not automatically defeat a credible oral explanation if other corroborative facts support it.

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, without relying on it, an unsubstantiated allegation that a third party might have tampered with the vehicle; it made no finding on that suggestion. It also observed that very small proportions of contamination may be consistent with inadvertent supply contamination rather than deliberate use.

Warning

- The chunk contains duplicated and repetitive text, but the factual narrative and findings are clear.

Source links

Judgment page Judgment PDF Judgment XML