British Sky Broadcasting Group Plc v Customs & Excise [2001] EWHC Admin 127 (23rd February, 2001)

British Sky Broadcasting Group Plc v Customs & Excise [2001] EWHC Admin 127 (23rd February, 2001)

The Commissioners did not perceive BSkyB and the comparator cable companies as being in a materially identical position at the relevant time. The evidence showed that the Commissioners believed there were factual differences justifying different VAT treatment. Therefore, the precondition for a breach of the duty to act fairly was not met, and there was no abuse of power or unfairness warranting judicial review or repayment of VAT.

Citation
[2001] EWHC Admin 127
Parties
Claimant: British Sky Broadcasting Group PLC; Defendants: Commissioners of Customs and Excise
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
VAT, Unfair Treatment, Abuse of Power, Judicial Review, Tax Discrimination
Tax Law Administrative Law VAT Unfair Treatment Abuse of Power Judicial Review Tax Discrimination

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

British Sky Broadcasting Group PLC

Claimant

Commissioners of Customs and Excise

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Commissioners of Customs and Excise acted unfairly by imposing VAT on BSkyB's magazine supply earlier than on comparator cable companies
  2. 2 Whether disparate treatment of similarly placed taxpayers amounts to an abuse of power justifying judicial review and repayment of tax

Ratio Decidendi

The Commissioners did not perceive BSkyB and the comparator cable companies as being in a materially identical position at the relevant time. The evidence showed that the Commissioners believed there were factual differences justifying different VAT treatment. Therefore, the precondition for a breach of the duty to act fairly was not met, and there was no abuse of power or unfairness warranting judicial review or repayment of VAT.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application for judicial review dismissed
  • No order for costs in relation to the hearing before Mr Justice Jowitt