Capital One Developments Ltd v Customs & Excise [2002] EWHC 197 (Ch) (04 February 2002)

Capital One Developments Ltd v Customs & Excise [2002] EWHC 197 (Ch) (04 February 2002)

The High Court has no jurisdiction to order an interim payment of a disputed VAT sum pending Tribunal determination where the entitlement is contested; the principle of proportionality from Molenheide does not require such payment in the absence of an admitted entitlement; the proper procedure is judicial review, not a private law application.

Citation
[2002] EWHC 197 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Capital One Developments Limited; Defendant: Commissioners for Customs & Excise
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 February 2002
Procedural Posture
Application for Interim Payment in VAT Dispute / High Court (chancery Division) Judgment on Application
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
VAT Refunds, Interim Relief, Judicial Review, Proportionality, Jurisdiction, European Community Law Direct Effect
Tax Law Administrative Law European Union Law VAT Refunds Interim Relief Judicial Review Proportionality Jurisdiction +1 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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Capital One Developments Limited

Claimant

Commissioners for Customs & Excise

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Interim Payment in VAT Dispute / High Court (chancery Division) Judgment on Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to order an interim payment of disputed VAT pending Tribunal determination
  2. 2 Whether the principle of proportionality under EU law requires such an interim payment
  3. 3 Whether the correct procedure is judicial review or private law application

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court has no jurisdiction to order an interim payment of a disputed VAT sum pending Tribunal determination where the entitlement is contested; the principle of proportionality from Molenheide does not require such payment in the absence of an admitted entitlement; the proper procedure is judicial review, not a private law application.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application for interim payment refused
  • Claimants ordered to pay costs of £17,000 to the Commissioners