Majestic Global FZ-LLC v The Commissioners for HMRC

Decision date: 4 September 2025

Neutral citation: [2025] UKFTT 1061 (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

Majestic challenged HMRC decisions that imposed conditions on CMBC's warehouse, beer registration and AWRS approvals which prevented supplies to Majestic. The First-tier Tribunal held those decisions were made in relation to CMBC's approvals and not in relation to or imposed on Majestic, and therefore Majestic lacked standing under s 16(2A)(b) and (c) FA. The tribunal struck out Majestic's appeals for want of jurisdiction.

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 tribunal treated the statutory gateways in s 16(2A)(b) and (c) as limited to persons in relation to whom a decision is made or on whom conditions are imposed or applied (i.e. the approval/registration holder), and held those provisions do not extend to third parties who are only consequentially affected by conditions imposed on another.

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 Parliament’s different wording in s 16(2A)(a) compared with (b) and (c) as supporting a narrower standing gateway, and observed practical consequences for third parties under warehousing regimes—points the tribunal treated as contextual or policy observations rather than altering the statutory construction.