JD Wetherspoon PLC v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 3 June 2025
Neutral citation: [2025] UKFTT 658 (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 supplies of cider fell within the RR Order exclusion for "alcoholic beverages" for 15 July 2020–31 March 2022. The FTT held that on ordinary construction the definition did not include cider, but applied the Inco rectifying interpretation and, separately, a conforming interpretation required by EU law to read cider into the definition. The tribunal therefore dismissed Wetherspoon’s claim for reduced-rate VAT on cider.
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’s ratio is that where secondary legislation cross‑refers to an existing exhaustive definition, courts should not depart from the express words by a strained purposive reading unless the strict Inco test for rectification is met; if the tribunal is abundantly sure from admissible materials that the omission was a drafting error reflecting the legislator’s clear intent, it may read the omitted item into the definition. Further, where an omission would conflict with EU law (here paragraph (12a) of Annex III and fiscal neutrality under the PVD), a conforming interpretation may likewise require reading the omitted item into domestic law.
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 indicated that contemporaneous secondary materials (policy papers and guidance produced while the instrument was rushed) can be admissible and decisive in showing the legislator’s purpose when a cross‑reference caused a drafting mistake. It also commented on the parenthetical wording of paragraph (12a) of Annex III as permitting only broad all‑or‑nothing beverage category exclusions rather than piecemeal exclusions.