Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Ferrero UK Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 06 May 1997 |
| Date | 06 May 1997 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
Court of Appeal
Before Lord Woolf, Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Hutchison and Lord Justice Mummery
Practice - tribunal - court must quash decision before remitting case
A judge erred in remitting a case to a value-added tax tribunal for rehearing under Order 55, rule 7(5) of the Rules of the Supreme Court without quashing the original decision.
The Court of Appeal so held in allowing an appeal by the taxpayer, Ferrero UK Ltd, against the decision of Mr Justice Potts in the Queen's Bench Division on May 1, 1996 to remit a decision of the London VAT Tribunal, that the supply of two products produced by the taxpayer was zero-rated for VAT purposes, to another tribunal for rehearing and determination.
Order 55, rule 7 provides: "(5) The court may give any judgment or decision or make any order which ought to have been given or made by the…tribunal…and make such further or other order as the case may require or may remit the matter with the opinion of the court for rehearing and determination by it…"
Mr David Ewart for the taxpayer; Mrs Melanie Hall for the commissioners.
THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS said that the commissioners, by their amended notice of appeal, had contended that the VAT tribunal had misconstrued the legislation and had answered the wrong question.
Before the judge, the taxpayer had taken the point that the matter relied upon had not been relied upon before the tribunal and, therefore, the commissioners could only raise the matter with the leave of the judge.
The judge had held that the commissioners were not entitled to raise the new point and had remitted the matter to another tribunal for rehearing and determination.
In taking that course the judge had been purporting to rely on the power contained in Order 55, rule 7(5).
His Lordship was bound to say that the judge was in error in so remitting the matter. The judge could not remit the whole of the matter for rehearing and determination without quashing the decision of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Procter & Gamble UK v HM Revenue and Customs
...practical answer. The Tribunal did just that. 15 In so stating I am saying no more than was said by Lord Woolf MR in CCE v Ferrero [1997] STC 881 at p.884: “I commend the Tribunal for the care which it took over this matter, but I am bound to say that, no doubt because of the submissions w......
- Lansell House Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation
-
Procter & Gamble UK v HM Revenue and Customs
...should say something about them before looking at how the Tribunal applied them. The approach to construction of the statutory provisions 14 Ferrero raised the issue whether the wafer products concerned were biscuits within excepted item 2 in Group 1 “Confectionery, not including cakes or b......
-
HM Revenue and Customs v Premier Foods (Holdings) Ltd
...being no statutory definition of the word “confectionery” and applying the decision of the Court of Appeal in the Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Ferraro UK Limited [1997] STC 881, the relevant question would be what view would be taken by the man in the street, informed as the Tribu......