McGeown Transport Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC

McGeown Transport Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC

The appellant's original ground of appeal, based on lack of knowledge of the excise goods, is irrelevant under the strict liability regime established by binding EU and domestic authority. The proposed amendment to pleadings, asserting the appellant was not the holder of the goods, is inherently implausible,...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: McGeown Transport Limited; Respondents: The Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Tax Appeal / Interlocutory Application to Strike Out Appeal
Outcome
Appeal struck out; application to amend pleadings refused
Legal Topics
Excise Duty Liability, Strike Out Applications, Amendment of Pleadings, Jurisdiction of Tribunal, Strict Liability in Excise Law
Tax Law Excise Duty Civil Procedure Excise Duty Liability Strike Out Applications Amendment of Pleadings Jurisdiction of Tribunal Strict Liability in Excise Law

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 2 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

McGeown Transport Limited

Appellant

The Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Tax Appeal / Interlocutory Application to Strike Out Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's appeal should be struck out for having no reasonable prospect of success under Rule 8 of the Tribunal Rules
  2. 2 Whether the appellant should be granted permission to amend its grounds of appeal to assert it was not the holder of the goods at the duty point

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant's original ground of appeal, based on lack of knowledge of the excise goods, is irrelevant under the strict liability regime established by binding EU and domestic authority. The proposed amendment to pleadings, asserting the appellant was not the holder of the goods, is inherently implausible, self-contradictory, and unsupported by contemporaneous documentation. The appeal has no reasonable prospect of success and the application to amend is refused.

Court Disposition

Appeal struck out; application to amend pleadings refused

Orders

  • The respondents’ application to strike out the appeal is granted.
  • The appellant’s application to amend its grounds of appeal is refused.