Clayton, R (on the application of) v The Director of Border Revenue

Clayton, R (on the application of) v The Director of Border Revenue

The reciprocal gifting arrangement between the claimant and his brothers created an expectation of receiving tobacco in return, amounting to 'money’s worth' and thus not qualifying as 'own use' under regulation 13(5)(b); the Crown Court’s decision was lawful and rational.

Parties
Claimant: Martin William Clayton; Defendant: Her Majesty’s Court Service; Interested Party: The Director of Border Revenue
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment on Substantive Application
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Excise Duty, Condemnation of Goods, Personal Use Exception, Judicial Review Procedure
Administrative Law Tax Law Excise Duty Condemnation of Goods Personal Use Exception Judicial Review Procedure

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Martin William Clayton

Claimant

Her Majesty’s Court Service

Defendant

The Director of Border Revenue

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment on Substantive Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the transfer of tobacco to siblings under a reciprocal gifting arrangement constitutes 'own use' or is for 'money or money’s worth' under regulation 13(5)(b) of the Excise Goods (Holding, Movement and Duty Point) Regulations 2010
  2. 2 Whether the Crown Court’s decision was irrational or unlawful

Ratio Decidendi

The reciprocal gifting arrangement between the claimant and his brothers created an expectation of receiving tobacco in return, amounting to 'money’s worth' and thus not qualifying as 'own use' under regulation 13(5)(b); the Crown Court’s decision was lawful and rational.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Judicial review application dismissed
  • Stay on condemnation/forfeiture order lifted