Project Blue Ltd v Revenue and Customs [2016] EWCA Civ 485 (26 May 2016)

Project Blue Ltd v Revenue and Customs [2016] EWCA Civ 485 (26 May 2016)

The Court held that, on proper construction of sections 45(3) and 71A, the acquisition of the site by MAR was not exempt from SDLT under section 71A because PBL was not the vendor for SDLT purposes; the vendor was the Ministry of Defence. Therefore, MAR was liable for SDLT on its acquisition for £1.25bn. As a...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] EWCA Civ 485
Parties
Appellant/respondent: Project Blue Limited (formerly Project Blue (Guernsey) Limited); Respondents/appellants: The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Upper Tribunal (tax and Chancery Chamber) / Court of Appeal (civil Division) Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; cross-appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Stamp Duty Land Tax (sdlt), Alternative Property Finance, Shari'a Compliant Finance, Anti Avoidance Provisions, Statutory Interpretation
Tax Law Stamp Duty Land Tax (sdlt) Alternative Property Finance Shari'a Compliant Finance Anti Avoidance Provisions Statutory Interpretation

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Project Blue Limited (formerly Project Blue (Guernsey) Limited)

Appellant/respondent

The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

Respondents/appellants

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Upper Tribunal (tax and Chancery Chamber) / Court of Appeal (civil Division) Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Project Blue Limited (PBL) is liable for SDLT on the acquisition of Chelsea Barracks
  2. 2 Whether the acquisition by Masraf al Rayan (MAR) is exempt from SDLT under section 71A Finance Act 2003
  3. 3 Whether section 75A Finance Act 2003 applies to impose a notional SDLT charge and on whom

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that, on proper construction of sections 45(3) and 71A, the acquisition of the site by MAR was not exempt from SDLT under section 71A because PBL was not the vendor for SDLT purposes; the vendor was the Ministry of Defence. Therefore, MAR was liable for SDLT on its acquisition for £1.25bn. As a result, the condition in section 75A(1)(c) was not satisfied, and section 75A did not apply. PBL was not liable for SDLT on the transaction. The appeal was allowed and the cross-appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; cross-appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • PBL is not liable for SDLT on the acquisition of the Chelsea Barracks site.
  • MAR was liable for SDLT on its acquisition from the MoD for £1.25bn.