Neil Martin Ltd v Revenue and Customs

Neil Martin Ltd v Revenue and Customs

Parliament did not intend section 561(2) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 to confer a private law right of action for damages for delay in issuing a tax certificate. The statutory scheme provides only limited remedies and is designed to protect the public revenue, not sub-contractors. No common law duty of care arose on the facts, either directly or vicariously, as the relationship between the Claimant and the Revenue (or Mr Harrison) did not involve an assumption of responsibility, was involuntary, and imposing such a duty would be inconsistent with the statutory framework. The Revenue is not liable in damages for the alleged delay.

Parties
Claimant: Neil Martin Limited; Defendants: The Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 September 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil / Trial of Preliminary Issues
Outcome
Claim dismissed on all heads of private law liability.
Legal Topics
Breach of Statutory Duty, Negligence, Vicarious Liability, Damages Against Public Authorities, Construction Industry Scheme, Judicial Review
Public Law Tort Law Administrative Law Breach of Statutory Duty Negligence Vicarious Liability Damages Against Public Authorities Construction Industry Scheme +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Neil Martin Limited

Claimant

The Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Civil / Trial of Preliminary Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does section 561(2) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 confer a private law cause of action for damages for delay in issuing a tax certificate?
  2. 2 Did the Revenue owe a common law duty of care to the Claimant to process its application with reasonable expedition?
  3. 3 Is the Revenue vicariously liable for the alleged negligence of its officer, Mr Harrison?

Ratio Decidendi

Parliament did not intend section 561(2) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 to confer a private law right of action for damages for delay in issuing a tax certificate. The statutory scheme provides only limited remedies and is designed to protect the public revenue, not sub-contractors. No common law duty of care arose on the facts, either directly or vicariously, as the relationship between the Claimant and the Revenue (or Mr Harrison) did not involve an assumption of responsibility, was involuntary, and imposing such a duty would be inconsistent with the statutory framework. The Revenue is not liable in damages for the alleged delay.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed on all heads of private law liability.