Newcastle United Football Club Ltd & Anor v HM Revenue & Customs & Anor

Newcastle United Football Club Ltd & Anor v HM Revenue & Customs & Anor

The warrants were lawfully issued as the statutory requirements under PACE Schedule 1 were met, reasonable grounds for belief in criminality existed, procedural safeguards were satisfied, and the scope of the warrants was justified by the nature and breadth of the investigation. The absence of explicit reasons did not vitiate the warrants as the reasoning was discernible from the application and transcript.

Parties
Claimant: Newcastle United Football Club Limited; Claimant: Newcastle United Limited; Claimant: Newcastle United Football Company Limited; First Defendant: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs; Second Defendant: The Crown Court at Leeds
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 October 2017
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
application for judicial review dismissed
Legal Topics
Search and Seizure Warrants, Judicial Review, Tax Evasion, Procedure for Warrants, Disclosure Obligations

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 29 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Newcastle United Football Club Limited

Claimant

Newcastle United Limited

Claimant

Newcastle United Football Company Limited

Claimant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

First Defendant

The Crown Court at Leeds

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the warrants issued for search and seizure were lawfully granted under PACE Schedule 1
  2. 2 Whether procedural failings vitiated the warrants
  3. 3 Whether substantive grounds existed for quashing the warrants

Ratio Decidendi

The warrants were lawfully issued as the statutory requirements under PACE Schedule 1 were met, reasonable grounds for belief in criminality existed, procedural safeguards were satisfied, and the scope of the warrants was justified by the nature and breadth of the investigation. The absence of explicit reasons did not vitiate the warrants as the reasoning was discernible from the application and transcript.

Court Disposition

application for judicial review dismissed

Orders

  • warrants upheld as lawfully issued
  • permission to rely on post-dated evidence refused