Northern Gas Networks Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC

Northern Gas Networks Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC

NGN is not entitled to land remediation relief because the land was in a contaminated state partly as a result of NGN’s own acts, specifically the continued pumping of gas through iron pipes, which satisfies the exclusion in Condition (6) of Schedule 22 to the Finance Act 2001. The statutory language is clear and...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Northern Gas Networks Ltd; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 July 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Upper Tribunal (tax and Chancery Chamber) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Land Remediation Relief, Corporation Tax, Statutory Interpretation
Tax Law Land Remediation Relief Corporation Tax Statutory Interpretation

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

Parties

Northern Gas Networks Ltd

Appellant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Upper Tribunal (tax and Chancery Chamber) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether NGN is entitled to land remediation relief under Schedule 22 to the Finance Act 2001
  2. 2 Interpretation of Condition (6) regarding contamination caused wholly or partly by the company or connected persons
  3. 3 Interpretation of relevant qualifying expenditure under Condition (4)

Ratio Decidendi

NGN is not entitled to land remediation relief because the land was in a contaminated state partly as a result of NGN’s own acts, specifically the continued pumping of gas through iron pipes, which satisfies the exclusion in Condition (6) of Schedule 22 to the Finance Act 2001. The statutory language is clear and does not permit relief where the company is partly responsible for the contamination.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed