HM Revenue & Customs v James (t/a M&D Enterprise)

HM Revenue & Customs v James (t/a M&D Enterprise)

The claimant is precluded by the statutory provisions from challenging the lawfulness of the original seizure of his vehicle, as he failed to serve notice under the statutory procedure, resulting in deemed condemnation. The claim is therefore an abuse of process and must be struck out.

Parties
Appellant/defendant: HM Commissioners of Revenue & Customs; Respondent/claimant: Dean Mark James (t/a M&D Enterprise)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 February 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Decision Declining to Strike Out Claim
Outcome
appeal allowed; claim struck out
Legal Topics
Statutory Forfeiture, Abuse of Process, Jurisdiction, Res Judicata, Damages for Wrongful Interference, State Liability, European Convention on Human Rights
Customs and Excise Law Civil Procedure Human Rights Law European Union Law Statutory Forfeiture Abuse of Process Jurisdiction Res Judicata +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 3 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HM Commissioners of Revenue & Customs

Appellant/defendant

Dean Mark James (t/a M&D Enterprise)

Respondent/claimant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Decision Declining to Strike Out Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a challenge to the lawfulness of a seizure after deemed condemnation under the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979
  2. 2 Whether the claim is an abuse of process due to failure to use the statutory challenge procedure
  3. 3 Whether the statutory scheme is compliant with European Union law and the European Convention on Human Rights

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant is precluded by the statutory provisions from challenging the lawfulness of the original seizure of his vehicle, as he failed to serve notice under the statutory procedure, resulting in deemed condemnation. The claim is therefore an abuse of process and must be struck out.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed; claim struck out

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed.
  • The claim is struck out as an abuse of process.