Austin (F) (Leyton) Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1968 |
| Court | Chancery Division |
Revenue - Purchase Tax - “Furniture” - Dressing table units - Whether furniture - Whether ordinarily installed by builders as fixture - Liability to purchase tax -
The plaintiffs manufactured and sold by wholesale, inter alia, a built-in dressing table unit constructed of timber. The unit comprised a dressing table with two drawers inset between timber sides which stood on the floor. Above the table was a mirror and light; the two side timbers extended above the table and were joined together behind the mirror by a piece of timber and above it by a shelf. Above the shelf was a compartment with a flap door. The unit was not designed for use as a free standing dressing table and when standing free lacked complete rigidity. It was designed to be fitted between built-in wardrobes: the dressing table unit being secured on each side to the wardrobe units, to the wall by four plug brackets and sometimes to the ceiling by a batten. The units could not easily be erected by an unskilled person but they were easily removable without appreciably damaging either the units or the room. The plaintiffs claimed a declaration that the dressing table unit was not an article of, “furniture” within the meaning of Group 11 of Part I of Schedule 1, to the Purchase Tax Act, 1963, alternatively, that it was an article of a kind ordinarily installed by builders as a fixture within the meaning of Group 11.
Held, (1) that the word “furniture” in the Act should be given its ordinary popular meaning; that articles did not necessarily have to be moveable to be classed as furniture, and fixture to a wall or floor did not exclude an article from the ordinary meaning; and that, accordingly, the dressing table units were “furniture” within the meaning of Group 11 and were chargeable to purchase tax.
2. That, since the dressing table units could be detached without appreciable damage to, or alteration of the fabric or themselves and were not so affixed as to become part of the fabric of the house they were, accordingly, “furniture” within Group 11.
3. That the units did not fall within the description of articles not chargeable under Group 11 since they were not, at the present time ordinarily installed by builders as fixtures.
The plaintiffs, F. Austin (Leyton) Ltd., manufactured a built-in dressing table unit known as the “Multiglide”. By a letter dated May 6, 1966, the defendants, the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, denied that the “Multiglide” was an article of a kind ordinarily installed by builders as a fixture and that purchase tax at the rate of 10 per cent. was chargeable.
On July 15, 1966, the plaintiffs issued a writ and by their amended statement of claim sought a declaration that the “Multiglide” was not an article of furniture within the meaning of Group 11 of Part I of Schedule 1 to the Purchase Tax Act, 1963, or, alternatively, was an article of a kind ordinarily installed by builders as a fixture and was not chargeable with purchase tax under Group 11 or any other Group of Part I of the first Schedule.
H. Major Allan Q.C. and Peter Rees for the plaintiffs.
H. E. Francis Q.C. and J. P. Warner for the defendants.
The cases cited in argument were referred to in the judgment.
STAMP J. The plaintiffs in this case manufacture and sell by wholesale, inter alia, a built-in dressing table unit known as the “Multiglide” dressing unit. The question I have to decide is whether a sale of this article attracts liability to purchase tax in respect of the article. The question turns on whether the article falls within the description in Group 11 of Schedule 1 to the Purchase Tax Act, 1963, of furniture, hardware, ironmongery, turnery, tableware, kitchen-ware and toilet-ware, being articles of a kind used for domestic or office purposes, and, if so, whether it is excepted from the charge being the effect of the direction under the heading of Group 11 not chargeable under this group: builders' hardware, sanitary ware and other articles of kinds ordinarily installed by builders as fixtures. The plaintiffs contend that the article is not within the description “furniture,” or, if it is, that it is excepted from the charge under Group 11 because it is an article of a kind ordinarily installed by builders as fixtures.
The article when sold is in a sense a complete unit and will stand on its own. It is constructed of timber and comprises a dressing table with two dressing table drawers inset between, and resting upon, the timber sides which stand on the floor. A mirror is attached to the back but is delivered as a separate parcel. There is a light above the mirror. The two side timbers are joined together as well by a shelf or top above the mirror as by the table piece and drawers. The side timbers extend above the shelf to form a compartment without a top, which is opened and closed by a flap door. The side timbers are also joined by timber at the back of the mirror. The design of the unit is illustrated by an exhibited drawing. The unit stands solidly on its own but lacks complete rigidity. It is not designed for use as a free-standing dressing table. It has a small degree of instability when standing free — an instability which would no doubt be increased if heavy articles were placed in the compartment over the dressing table part of the unit. No one would, in my judgment, use it as a free-standing piece of furniture. It could perhaps be fitted into a recess which happened to fit, but the evidence is that it has not been so fitted. It is designed to be fitted into other units manufactured by the plaintiffs, and not to serve any other purpose.
The plaintiffs also manufacture what are called built-in wardrobes. These wardrobes are made in a considerable number of different widths to be fitted along the whole side of a room, the two return...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commissioners of Customs and Excise v McLean Homes Midland Ltd
...WLRVATWLRVAT[1981] 1 WLR 49, (1981) 1 BVC 356 (CA); [1981] 1 WLR 1542, (1981) 1 BVC 451 (HL) Austin (F) (Leyton) Ltd v C & E Commrs ELR[1968] Ch 529 British Airways plc v C & E Commrs VAT(1990) 5 BVC 97 British Railways Board v C & E Commrs WLRVAT[1977] 1 WLR 588; (1977) 1 BVC 116 Buchler v......
-
Taylor Wimpey Plc v The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs
...to purchase tax under the Purchase Tax Act 1963, Sch 1, Part I, Group 11: see F Austin (Leyton) Ltd v Customs and Excise Commissioners [1968] 1 Ch 529, footnote 35. In relation to that part of the Claim Period to which the Second Directive applied (1 April 1973 to 31 December 1977), Taylor ......
-
Silver Sea Properties (Leamington Spa) Sarl
...kinds ordinarily installed by builders as fixtures. Given the similarity, it is worth e referring fully to the analysis given by Stamp J, [1968] Ch 529 at 538–539: As a matter of the ordinary meaning of the English language, the word “ordinarily”, in my view, governs the whole of the rest o......
-
Taylor Wimpey PLC v The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs
...feature. 65. In the first UT decision we referred to the judgment of Stamp J in F Austin (Leyton) Ltd v Customs and Excise Commissioners [1968] 1 Ch 529, a case concerning analogous provisions in the Purchase Tax Act 1963, but which is relevant in its analysis of the test of “ordinarily ins......