Deliverance Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

Decision date: 4 December 2009

Neutral citation: [2009] UKFTT 351 (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

Deliverance Limited appealed HMRC's refusal of a VAT repayment, disputing whether various takeaway items were "hot food" under Note (3) to Group 1 of Schedule 8 to the VAT Act 1994. The Tribunal found the disputed items were above ambient temperature when provided and, by the chairman's casting vote, held the supplier's purpose in heating (to demonstrate freshness) amounted to a purpose of enabling consumption hot. The appeal was dismissed and the repayment claim refused.

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 applied Note (3) by assessing temperature at the time the food was provided to the customer and permitted the test to be applied to any part of the food; evidence about how food is treated after heating (kept hot pending dispatch and in insulated delivery packaging) is relevant to determining whether the supplier's purpose in heating was to enable consumption above ambient.

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 judgment observed that compliance with food safety regulations (e.g. keeping food above 63°C or rapid chilling) may affect operational treatment and the evidential posture but does not by itself decide the VAT purpose. It also suggested in principle some items could be sold indifferently hot or cold depending on packaging, presentation and supplier conduct, such that heating might not be for the purpose of enabling consumption hot.