Panorama Cash & Carry (t/a Booze Direct) v Revenue And Customs [2021] EWHC 2654 (Ch) (04 October 2021)

Panorama Cash & Carry (t/a Booze Direct) v Revenue And Customs [2021] EWHC 2654 (Ch) (04 October 2021)

The claim for misfeasance in public office was time-barred as the cause of action accrued in 2010 and no statutory or equitable basis for extension was established; the statutory tribunal process did not preclude earlier commencement of the tort claim; the Chief Master acted within his discretion in refusing...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 2654 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant / Appellant: Panorama Cash & Carry T/A Booze Direct; Defendants / Respondents: The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 October 2021
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Permission to Appeal and Substantive Appeal Following Strike Out of Claim
Outcome
Appeal dismissed after permission granted
Legal Topics
Misfeasance in Public Office, Limitation of Actions, Jurisdiction of Tribunals, Case Management Discretion
Tort Law Public Law Administrative Law Misfeasance in Public Office Limitation of Actions Jurisdiction of Tribunals Case Management Discretion

Source-derived case record

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Panorama Cash & Carry T/A Booze Direct

Claimant / Appellant

The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs

Defendants / Respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Permission to Appeal and Substantive Appeal Following Strike Out of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim for misfeasance in public office was properly struck out for defective pleading
  2. 2 Whether the claim was time-barred under the Limitation Act 1980
  3. 3 Whether the High Court's jurisdiction was ousted by the statutory tribunal process

Ratio Decidendi

The claim for misfeasance in public office was time-barred as the cause of action accrued in 2010 and no statutory or equitable basis for extension was established; the statutory tribunal process did not preclude earlier commencement of the tort claim; the Chief Master acted within his discretion in refusing permission to amend the particulars of claim.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed after permission granted

Orders

  • Permission to appeal granted
  • Appeal dismissed