Esheria United Kingdom Case Law
Sign in
United Kingdom Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

United Kingdom Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
0 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter United Kingdom case law

Results update automatically as you type.

United Kingdom decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Tax law [2026] UKFTT 657 (TC)

Sweetmotion Ltd v Revenue and Customs (VAT - Kittel - fast moving consumer goods - knew or should have known - company penalty - mitigation)

Sweetmotion Ltd v Revenue and Customs (VAT - Kittel - fast moving consumer goods - knew or should have known - company penalty - mitigation) [2026] UKFTT 657 (TC) (05 May 2026)

The tribunal upheld a Kittel-based VAT input tax denial in part and reduced a VAT company penalty, finding Sweetmotion should have known of fraud from 19 January 2021.

  • Vat fraud
  • Input tax deduction
  • Kittel principle
  • Company penalty
  • Mitigation of penalty
  • Vat-fraud
Read case analysis
Tax law [2026] UKFTT 657

Sweetmotion Ltd v Revenue and Customs (VAT - Kittel - fast moving consumer goods - knew or should have known - company penalty - mitigation)

Sweetmotion Ltd v Revenue and Customs (VAT - Kittel - fast moving consumer goods - knew or should have known - company penalty - mitigation) [2026] UKFTT 657 (TC) (05 May 2026)

The tribunal upheld a VAT input tax denial for trades linked to fraudulent suppliers, finding the appellant should have known of the fraud from 19 January 2021.

  • Vat fraud
  • Input tax deduction
  • Kittel principle
  • Company penalty
  • Mitigation of penalty
  • Vat-fraud
Read case analysis
Immigration law [2026] UKAITUR UI2026000494

UI2026000494

UI2026000494 [2026] UKAITUR UI2026000494 (22 April 2026)

Upper Tribunal held there was no material error of law in dismissing an EUSS appeal based on a finding that the marriage was one of convenience.

  • Marriage of convenience
  • Euss applications
  • Devaseelan guidelines
  • Proxy marriage validity
  • Burden of proof in immigration appeals
  • Immigration-appeals
Read case analysis
Immigration law [2026] UKAITUR UI2025002144

UI2025002144

UI2025002144 [2026] UKAITUR UI2025002144 (31 March 2026)

The Upper Tribunal held that a stepfather is not included within “parent” or “direct relative in the ascending line” under Appendix EU (Family Permit), so the appeal was dismissed.

  • Eu settlement scheme
  • Family member definition
  • Interpretation of immigration rules
  • Eu-settlement-scheme
  • Family-permit
  • Immigration-rules-interpretation
Read case analysis
Immigration law [2026] UKAITUR UI2024001113

UI2024001113

UI2024001113 [2026] UKAITUR UI2024001113 (27 March 2026)

The Upper Tribunal allowed an EUSS family permit appeal, holding that the rules in force at the date of decision disapplied certain FP6 requirements for retained-right cases.

  • Euss family permit
  • Retained right of residence
  • Withdrawal agreement
  • Appendix eu (family permit)
  • Interpretation of immigration rules
  • Immigration-law
Read case analysis
Immigration law [2026] UKAITUR UI2025005917

UI2025005917

UI2025005917 [2026] UKAITUR UI2025005917 (27 March 2026)

The Upper Tribunal set aside a First-tier Tribunal decision for procedural unfairness, then dismissed an EUSS family permit appeal after finding key supporting documents were false.

  • Eu settlement scheme
  • Family permit
  • Procedural fairness
  • False documents
  • Adjournment
  • Error of law
Read case analysis
Immigration law [2026] UKAITUR UI2025004506

UI2025004506

UI2025004506 [2026] UKAITUR UI2025004506 (27 March 2026)

Upper Tribunal dismissed an EU Settlement Scheme appeal, holding the First-tier Tribunal made no error of law in finding insufficient evidence of a durable partnership by 31 December 2020.

  • Eu settlement scheme
  • Durable partner status
  • Evidence assessment
  • Procedural fairness
  • Duty to give reasons
  • Eu-settlement-scheme
Read case analysis
Immigration law [2026] UKAITUR UI2025005052

UI2025005052

UI2025005052 [2026] UKAITUR UI2025005052 (19 March 2026)

The Upper Tribunal set aside a First-tier Tribunal decision finding a marriage of convenience, holding that the judge gave inadequate reasons and remitted the case.

  • Marriage of convenience
  • Appendix eu
  • Burden of proof
  • Error of law
  • Remittal
  • Immigration-law
Read case analysis
Customs and excise [2026] UKFTT 557

WM Morrison Supermarket Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Anti-dumping duty - whether factory in Thailand for production of aluminium foil breached the anti-avoidance rule)

WM Morrison Supermarket Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Anti-dumping duty - whether factory in Thailand for production of aluminium foil breached the anti-avoidance rule) [2026] UKFTT 557 (TC) (11 March 2026)

The Tribunal dismissed Morrison’s appeal against anti-dumping duty on aluminium foil from Thailand, finding the Thai processing was not economically justified and not substantial.

  • Anti-dumping duty
  • Rules of origin
  • Union customs code
  • Economic justification
  • Substantial processing
  • Non-preferential origin
Read case analysis
Customs and excise [2026] UKFTT 557 (TC)

WM Morrison Supermarket Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Anti-dumping duty - whether factory in Thailand for production of aluminium foil breached the anti-avoidance rule)

WM Morrison Supermarket Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Anti-dumping duty - whether factory in Thailand for production of aluminium foil breached the anti-avoidance rule) [2026] UKFTT 557 (TC) (11 March 2026)

The Tribunal upheld HMRC’s anti-dumping duty demand on aluminium foil from Thailand, finding the Thai factory was set up to avoid duty and the processing was not substantial.

  • Anti-dumping duty
  • Rules of origin
  • Union customs code
  • Economic justification
  • Substantial processing
  • Article 33 commission delegated regulation (eu) 2015/2446
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

United Kingdom decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.