HM Revenue & Customs v J M Gorry & Son [2009] NICA 9 (20 February 2009)

HM Revenue & Customs v J M Gorry & Son [2009] NICA 9 (20 February 2009)

Forfeiture proceedings were properly brought under Article 76 of the 1981 Order; the absence of a limitation period in Northern Ireland does not constitute unlawful discrimination under the ECHR; the factual findings justified forfeiture; and the delay did not render the proceedings unfair or justify a stay.

Citation
[2009] NICA 9
Parties
Applicant/respondent: Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs; Respondent/appellant: J M Gorry & Son
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
20 February 2009
Procedural Posture
Case Stated by a Resident Magistrate (forfeiture Proceedings) / Appeal to Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Forfeiture of Vehicles, Limitation Periods, Discrimination Under ECHR, Interpretation of Customs and Excise Management Act 1979, Application of Travellers Reliefs (fuel and Lubricants) Order 1995
Customs and Excise Human Rights Civil Procedure Forfeiture of Vehicles Limitation Periods Discrimination Under ECHR Interpretation of Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 Application of Travellers Reliefs (fuel and Lubricants) Order 1995

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 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

Applicant/respondent

J M Gorry & Son

Respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Case Stated by a Resident Magistrate (forfeiture Proceedings) / Appeal to Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether forfeiture proceedings were properly brought under Article 76 of the Magistrates' Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981
  2. 2 Whether the absence of a limitation period in Northern Ireland for such proceedings is discriminatory under Article 1 of the First Protocol and Article 14 ECHR
  3. 3 Whether there was sufficient evidence to support forfeiture under CEMA and the 1995 Order

Ratio Decidendi

Forfeiture proceedings were properly brought under Article 76 of the 1981 Order; the absence of a limitation period in Northern Ireland does not constitute unlawful discrimination under the ECHR; the factual findings justified forfeiture; and the delay did not render the proceedings unfair or justify a stay.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Forfeiture of the two Volvo lorries confirmed
  • Questions in the case stated answered: 1. Yes; 2. Yes; 3. Yes; 4. Does not arise; 5. Yes; 6. No.