Resteel Trading Ltd v Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 236 (TC) (09 September 2009)

Resteel Trading Ltd v Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 236 (TC) (09 September 2009)

There was no legally binding variation of the Supply Agreement as required by clause 12; the deferral of payment was an indulgence, not a contractual amendment. Payment became due 60 days after the invoice dates, and the claim for bad debt relief was made out of time.

Citation
[2009] UKFTT 236
Parties
Appellant: Resteel Trading Ltd; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
09 September 2009
Procedural Posture
Tax Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax Chamber) Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Bad Debt Relief, Variation of Contract, Time Limits for Claims, Supply Agreements, VAT Regulations
Tax Law Contract Law Bad Debt Relief Variation of Contract Time Limits for Claims Supply Agreements VAT Regulations

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Resteel Trading Ltd

Appellant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Tax Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax Chamber) Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was a legally binding variation of the supply agreement regarding payment terms
  2. 2 Whether the claim for bad debt relief was made within the statutory time limit

Ratio Decidendi

There was no legally binding variation of the Supply Agreement as required by clause 12; the deferral of payment was an indulgence, not a contractual amendment. Payment became due 60 days after the invoice dates, and the claim for bad debt relief was made out of time.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed