Court of Appeal Rules Against BT in VAT Bad Debt Relief Case, Upholding Exclusive Statutory Remedy

Citation: [2023] EWCA Civ 1412
Judgment on


The case of BT Plc v The Commissioners for HMRC ([2023] EWCA Civ 1412) presents a complex legal analysis addressing the interplay between European Union (EU) law and UK domestic law in the context of Value Added Tax (VAT) bad debt relief. This article analyses the Court of Appeal judgement, focusing on the legal principles and reasoning applied to determine whether BT was entitled to claim VAT bad debt relief for periods predating the implementation of the EC Council Directive, and whether BT had a common law claim for restitution.

Key Facts

BT pursued claims against HMRC dating back to 1978 for unpaid VAT on the basis that certain domestic VAT provisions did not comply with the Sixth Directive (77/388/EC). BT’s claims primarily rested on the assertion that the ‘Old Scheme’ under which VAT bad debt relief was claimed did not meet EU law requirements due to improper domestic implementation, especially regarding an ‘insolvency condition’ that impacted BT’s claims.

During the legal proceedings, several key issues emerged, including whether the domestic VAT scheme provided an exhaustive remedy thus barring any common law claims (the exclusive remedy issue), whether there was unjust enrichment by HMRC (the unjust enrichment issue), and whether BT was time-barred from making some of its claims (the 9-month claim issue).

The court’s judgement contained a detailed application of several inherent legal principles surrounding statutory interpretation, exclusive remedies, the nature of unjust enrichment, and limitation periods under the mistake principle.

Exclusive Remedy and Statutory Interpretation

The court held that, based on statutory construction and all the circumstances, the ‘Old Scheme’ was intended to be comprehensive and exclusive, precluding any common law remedy for bad debt relief during the ‘main period.’ This conclusion was drawn from the specific statutory provisions and qualifications found within the scheme, the appeals procedure provided, and the prescriptive regulatory framework which indicated a legislative intention against coexisting statutory and common law remedies.

Unjust Enrichment

In addressing unjust enrichment, the court referenced the principles that restitution is aimed at reversing ‘normatively defective’ transfers of value. BT’s failure to claim within the statutory scheme did not constitute a transfer of value that would ground a claim for unjust enrichment because BT had not forfeited any right, but had rather failed to exercise it. Moreover, Arguments based on Iveco, DMG, and Gibb v Maidstone were differentiated, as they either pertained to situations without a domestic statutory remedy or involved the actual relinquishment of rights, unlike BT’s circumstances.

Limitation Periods and Mistake

The court scrutinized Section 80 of the VATA 1994 and its sub-sections, which excluded other common law remedies when VAT was overpaid. For the ‘main period,’ BT’s claims were deemed out of time as the statutory scheme was appropriately available and BT had the opportunity but failed to act before the enactment of adverse legislation (s.39(5) FA 1997).

In terms of the ‘9-month claim’ issue, the mistake principle under Section 32(1)(c) of the Limitation Act 1980 was considered. However, determining the point of discoverability of the mistake would entail an in-depth factual inquiry, which was not feasible given the absence of evidence in HMRC’s application.


The court dismissed BT’s appeal for the ‘main period’ and allowed HMRC’s cross-appeal for the ‘9-month period.’ The conclusion was that BT’s statutory claims were subject to the exclusive provisions in the VAT legislation, and there was no ground for unjust enrichment or circumvention of the established legislative framework.


The Court of Appeal’s judgement in BT Plc v The Commissioners for HMRC underscores the principle that, in the absence of an express statutory exclusion, a highly detailed and qualified statutory scheme can indeed provide an exclusive remedy, rendering common law claims untenable. Furthermore, it elucidates the legal concept of unjust enrichment, emphasizing the lack of restitution for mere inaction where a statutory mechanism exists for such relief. Additionally, the case illustrates how discoverability of mistakes plays into limitation periods, highlighting the necessity of evidence to support such claims. This case reaffirms the supremacy of statutory mechanisms in the sphere of tax law and provides clarity for legal practitioners on the limits of restitution and the need for taxpayers to vigilantly exercise their rights within the confines of the law.

Related Summaries