Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
England and Wales decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The Tribunal dismissed Mr Sivarajah’s appeal against an HMRC money laundering registration penalty, finding he had not taken all reasonable steps or due diligence.
VAT appeal allowed. The tribunal held HMRC proved the assessments were in time, but failed to show the appellant should have known its supplies were linked to VAT fraud.
Jinxin Inc v Auletta & Ors [2026] EWHC 765 (Comm) (31 March 2026)
Fraud and conspiracy claims arising from Jinxin’s purchase of MPS Group shares were dismissed after trial, the court finding no proved deceit or bribery.
The High Court dismissed a summary judgment application in a share sale dispute, holding the defendant had a reasonably arguable defence on warranty breach and fraud-related liability.
The appellant, through its officers, knew or should have known its transactions were connected to the fraudulent evasion of VAT. The evidence provided for zero-rating was unreliable and insufficient, failing to meet mandatory requirements for proof of removal. The appeals are dismissed.
Source excerpt
Unity Ship Group SA v Euroins Insurance JSC (Re the "Happy Aras") [2026] EWHC 7 (Admlty) (12 January 2026)
The Admiralty Court held the vessel was unseaworthy because the Master was incompetent and due diligence was not proved, so the general average claim failed.
The appellants did not know, nor had means of knowing, that the only reasonable explanation for the circumstances of their purchases was connection with fraudulent evasion of VAT; due diligence was inadequate but not sufficient to fix knowledge, and surrounding circumstances did not raise red flags compelling only fraud as explanation.
Source excerpt
UKCSL should have known that the denied deals were connected with fraudulent evasion of VAT. The only reasonable explanation for the transactions, given the totality of evidence, was fraud. Due diligence was inadequate, red flags were ignored, and commercial rationale was lacking. Actual knowledge was not proven, but constructive knowledge was established under Kittel principles.
Source excerpt
SKM neither knew nor ought to have known its transactions with BTL were connected with fraudulent VAT evasion; reasonable explanations existed for trading patterns; due diligence shortcomings did not amount to constructive knowledge; HMRC failed to discharge burden of proof; input tax denial, penalty, and officer liability not justified.
Source excerpt
The judge was entitled to conclude that the prosecution was under no obligation to disclose telephonic and digital data before the defence statement was served; the need to adjourn and extend custody time limits was caused by the claimant's late particularisation and request for expert evidence, not by prosecution delay.
Source excerpt
Explore more
