Butlers Ship Stores Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 10 October 2025
Neutral citation: [2025] UKFTT 1227 (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 concerned a claim for drawback of excise duty following a 2014 assessment and HMRC's application to strike out and resist disclosure. The Tribunal held s16(3) Finance Act 1994 can apply to drawback decisions and that BSS had no reasonable prospect of proving it was an "eligible claimant" because it lacked evidence that the exports occurred in the course of its business, so the appeal was struck out. The Tribunal refused most other strike-out grounds and said limited disclosure from BSS's customers (not HMRC internal notes) would have been appropriate had the appeal proceeded.
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 decisions on drawback as within the scope of s16(3) FA 1994 and confirmed that strike-out for no reasonable prospect of success is appropriate where an essential statutory requirement (here, that the claimant was the trader in the course of whose business the alleged exports took place under Regulation 6) is unsupported by evidence.
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 where the appellant bears the burden of proving exports occurred in the course of its business, broad disclosure of HMRC internal documents is generally unnecessary, and that assertions of "legitimate expectation" in this context are commentary better pursued by judicial review than by preventing HMRC from advancing adverse factual arguments.