Gascoyne v Customs and Excise & Anor [2004] EWCA Civ 1162 (28 July 2004)

Gascoyne v Customs and Excise & Anor [2004] EWCA Civ 1162 (28 July 2004)

The applicant's letter of 17 April 2001, read in context and in light of the statutory scheme and accompanying notices, was reasonably construed as a request for restoration and not as a notice of claim under Schedule 3 CEMA. The Commissioners were not obliged to treat it as a challenge to the lawfulness of the seizure. The tribunal and the court were correct to refuse relief, and the appeal is dismissed.

Citation
[2004] EWCA Civ 1162
Parties
Applicant/appellant: Barry Gascoyne; First Defendant/respondent: HM Customs and Excise; Second Defendant/respondent: The Chairman of the VAT and Duties Tribunal
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 July 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Forfeiture of Goods, Condemnation Proceedings, Restoration of Seized Property, Interpretation of Statutory Notices, Article 6 ECHR (fair Trial), Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR (property Rights), Abuse of Process, Proportionality, Tribunal Jurisdiction
Customs and Excise Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Forfeiture of Goods Condemnation Proceedings Restoration of Seized Property Interpretation of Statutory Notices Article 6 ECHR (fair Trial) +4 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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Barry Gascoyne

Applicant/appellant

HM Customs and Excise

First Defendant/respondent

The Chairman of the VAT and Duties Tribunal

Second Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's letter constituted a notice of claim under paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 to the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 (CEMA) requiring condemnation proceedings.
  2. 2 Whether failure to treat the letter as such deprived the applicant of the right to challenge forfeiture in court.
  3. 3 Whether the tribunal had jurisdiction to revisit the lawfulness of the seizure in light of Gora v Customs & Excise Commissioners.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's letter of 17 April 2001, read in context and in light of the statutory scheme and accompanying notices, was reasonably construed as a request for restoration and not as a notice of claim under Schedule 3 CEMA. The Commissioners were not obliged to treat it as a challenge to the lawfulness of the seizure. The tribunal and the court were correct to refuse relief, and the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No order as to costs