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 VHL’s SDLT appeal, holding that Plot 2 formed part of the garden or grounds of the dwelling on Plot 1 under section 116 FA 2003.
The tribunal dismissed Shinebrook Ltd’s appeal, holding that the property was non-residential at completion and that Multiple Dwellings Relief was unavailable.
Upper Tribunal held that a carrier stream and island formed part of the grounds of a dwelling for SDLT. HMRC’s appeal was allowed and the taxpayer’s appeal dismissed.
The annex was suitable for use as a single dwelling at the effective date, meeting basic living needs with sufficient privacy, self-sufficiency, and security. The multi-factorial assessment, considering physical configuration, access, utility controls, and privacy, supports the conclusion that the property comprised two dwellings for SDLT purposes.
Source excerpt
The Towpath does not form part of the grounds of the House due to the high level of public intrusion and lack of privacy and security, so the property does not consist entirely of residential property for SDLT purposes.
Source excerpt
The paddock was part of the contiguous area of land surrounding the main dwelling, accessible only through the residential grounds, and not subject to any binding third-party rights at completion. The existence of a grazing licence and its use for grazing horses did not alter its character as part of the grounds. The property was therefore wholly residential for SDLT purposes.
Source excerpt
The Upper Tribunal allowed this SDLT appeal by consent, set aside the First-tier Tribunal decision for material error of law, and granted overpayment relief.
Upper Tribunal allowed BTR Core Fund JPUT’s SDLT appeal, holding that the error was in self-assessment of tax, not a mistake in the MDR claim.
The Tower One St George Wharf Ltd v Commissioners for His Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2025] EWCA Civ 1588 (10 December 2025)
Court of Appeal held the Case 3 SDLT exception applied, but s.75A anti-avoidance still brought the scheme within charge, so the appeal was dismissed.
The acquisition comprised both residential and non-residential land. Significant parcels were used for commercial deer farming, sheep grazing, agricultural production, and windfarm easement, with formal agreements and evidence of commercial activity. The house and immediate gardens were residential, but the surrounding land had a self-standing commercial function, not merely supporting the dwelling. The transaction was mixed-use, so non-residential SDLT rates applied.
Source excerpt
Explore more
