Hochtief Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
Decision date: 20 November 2009
Neutral citation: [2009] UKFTT 321 (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 whether c.1,039,000 tonnes of rock excavated within the footprint of the Glendoe reservoir and used unmixed (except for water) to construct a rock‑fill dam were subject to the Aggregates Levy or fell within the s.19(3)(e) exception. The Tribunal held the quarry footprint and dam footprint formed the same "site" and that material moved within that site and again becoming part of the land was not "subjected to commercial exploitation," so the Levy did not apply and the liability appeal was allowed; the tax‑credit issue fell as academic though the Tribunal expressed the view it would have allowed the credit on the facts.
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 "site" for s.19(3)(e) as capable of reasonably embracing the whole area of a single construction project, so material won and then used within that agreed site (here the General Site: Dam Construction) and incorporated unchanged into a structure that becomes part of the land satisfies the condition that it "again become part of the land at the site from which it was won," meaning the activity is not a commercial exploitation for Aggregates Levy purposes.
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 commented (obiter) that a rock‑fill dam may form an integral part of an energy‑production scheme such that the aggregate in its natural state would qualify under the prescribed industrial process (production of energy), and that a purposive construction of s.19(3)(e) does not require an unduly wide reading of "site" that defeats its sensible ordinary meaning.