Oculus Ltd v Revenue And Customs & Anor (Rev1) [2024] EWHC 1102 (Admin) (13 May 2024)

Oculus Ltd v Revenue And Customs & Anor (Rev1) [2024] EWHC 1102 (Admin) (13 May 2024)

Grounds 1 to 5 are unarguable due to alternative remedies, lack of application of EU law post-Brexit, and the administrative nature of the information required. Ground 6 (ultra vires regarding the AAG6 form) is arguable as the requirement to send additional information may exceed statutory powers. Interim relief is refused as the balance of convenience does not favour the claimant.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 1102 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Oculus Ltd; First Defendant: Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs; Second Defendant: Griffith Anderson Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 May 2024
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Application for Permission and Interim Relief
Outcome
Permission to proceed with judicial review granted on ground 6 only; interim relief refused; permission refused on grounds 1 to 5.
Legal Topics
DOTAS Regime, Scheme Reference Number (srn), Judicial Review, Interim Relief, Free Movement of Capital, Right to Establish, GDPR, Withdrawal Agreement, Article 6 ECHR, Ultra Vires, Finance Act 2004
Tax Law Administrative Law European Union Law Human Rights Law DOTAS Regime Scheme Reference Number (srn) Judicial Review Interim Relief +7 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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Oculus Ltd

Claimant

Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs

First Defendant

Griffith Anderson Ltd

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Application for Permission and Interim Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the issuance of an SRN and requirement to send form AAG6 under the DOTAS regime is lawful
  2. 2 Whether the decision interferes with EU law rights (Free Movement of Capital, Right to Establish)
  3. 3 Whether the decision breaches GDPR, Article 5 of the Withdrawal Agreement, or Article 6 ECHR

Ratio Decidendi

Grounds 1 to 5 are unarguable due to alternative remedies, lack of application of EU law post-Brexit, and the administrative nature of the information required. Ground 6 (ultra vires regarding the AAG6 form) is arguable as the requirement to send additional information may exceed statutory powers. Interim relief is refused as the balance of convenience does not favour the claimant.

Court Disposition

Permission to proceed with judicial review granted on ground 6 only; interim relief refused; permission refused on grounds 1 to 5.

Orders

  • Permission to proceed with judicial review on ground 6 (ultra vires) granted, conditional on amendment to particularise wording complained of in AAG6 form.
  • Permission to proceed with judicial review on grounds 1 to 5 refused.