Hoverspeed Ltd & Ors v Commissioners of Customs & Excise [2002] EWHC 1630 (Admin) (31 July 2002)

Hoverspeed Ltd & Ors v Commissioners of Customs & Excise [2002] EWHC 1630 (Admin) (31 July 2002)

The court held that the PRO is incompatible with the Excise Directive and EC Treaty provisions because it reverses the burden of proof and creates an unlawful presumption of commercial purpose for goods above the MIL. Customs' policies and practices at Dover Hoverport, including indiscriminate checks and seizures without reasonable suspicion, are unlawful. Seizure and non-restoration of vehicles, especially those belonging to innocent third parties, without consideration of proportionality or individual circumstances, is disproportionate and unlawful. The refusal to return Miss Andrews' car without considering restoration on proportionate terms was a disproportionate response.

Citation
[2002] EWHC 1630 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Hoverspeed Limited; Claimant: Alan Charles Andrews; Claimant: Pauline Andrews; Claimant: Lynne Andrews; Claimant: George Wilkinson; Defendant: Commissioners of Customs & Excise
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 July 2002
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Applications for judicial review allowed in part; declarations granted as to unlawfulness of PRO and certain Customs practices; specific orders for return or compensation for seized goods and vehicles.
Legal Topics
Excise Duty, Importation of Goods, Burden of Proof, Freedom of Movement, Proportionality, Seizure of Goods and Vehicles, Judicial Review, Presumption of Commercial Purpose
European Union Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Excise Duty Importation of Goods Burden of Proof Freedom of Movement Proportionality +3 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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hoverspeed Limited

Claimant

Alan Charles Andrews

Claimant

Pauline Andrews

Claimant

Lynne Andrews

Claimant

George Wilkinson

Claimant

Commissioners of Customs & Excise

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Excise Duty (Personal Reliefs) Order 1992 (PRO) is compatible with Council Directive 92/12/EEC and EC Treaty provisions on free movement of goods and services.
  2. 2 Whether the PRO unlawfully reverses the burden of proof regarding commercial purpose for excise goods above the minimum indicative level (MIL).
  3. 3 Whether Customs' policies and practices at Dover Hoverport unlawfully restrict EC rights and breach the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the PRO is incompatible with the Excise Directive and EC Treaty provisions because it reverses the burden of proof and creates an unlawful presumption of commercial purpose for goods above the MIL. Customs' policies and practices at Dover Hoverport, including indiscriminate checks and seizures without reasonable suspicion, are unlawful. Seizure and non-restoration of vehicles, especially those belonging to innocent third parties, without consideration of proportionality or individual circumstances, is disproportionate and unlawful. The refusal to return Miss Andrews' car without considering restoration on proportionate terms was a disproportionate response.

Court Disposition

Applications for judicial review allowed in part; declarations granted as to unlawfulness of PRO and certain Customs practices; specific orders for return or compensation for seized goods and vehicles.

Orders

  • Declaration that the PRO is incompatible with Council Directive 92/12/EEC and EC Treaty provisions.
  • Declaration that Customs' policies and practices at Dover Hoverport are unlawful to the extent they impose checks and seizures without reasonable suspicion.