Freedom Recycling Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC
[2024] UKFTT 369 (TC)
Andrew Howard Parnham & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC
29 November 2023
[2023] UKUT 285 (TCC)
Upper Tribunal
Two truckers were hit with big tax bills for alcohol that supposedly never reached Belgium in 2006. Years of legal battles made it hard to have a fair trial. The court said a fair trial was still possible, and it's wrong to re-try arguments already decided.
Key Facts
- •Road hauliers Andrew Parnham and Mark Wild were assessed for joint and several liability for excise duty on duty-suspended spirits in 2006.
- •The assessments totalled £484,206 for Parnham and £1,302,036 for Wild.
- •The central factual issue is whether the spirits were delivered to an Aldi warehouse in Belgium as contracted.
- •The appellants' appeals were stayed pending the outcome of a related appeal by SDM European Transport Ltd (SDM), their main contractor.
- •SDM's appeal lasted nearly ten years, culminating in a 2015 Upper Tribunal decision finding that some, and therefore all, consignments had not arrived at the warehouse.
- •The appellants argued that a fair hearing was impossible due to the passage of time.
- •HMRC sought to strike out the appeals, arguing that the factual issue had already been determined in SDM's appeal.
- •The FTT in 2020 refused both the appellants' application to bar HMRC and HMRC's application to strike out the case.
Legal Principles
Joint and several liability for excise duty
Excise Duty Points (Duty Suspended Movements of Excise Goods) Regulations 2001, Regulation 7
Abuse of process; fairness of hearing
Foulser v HMRC [2013] UKUT 038 (TC)
Res judicata/Issue estoppel
Ashmore v British Coal Corporation [1990] 2 QB 338; Fidelitas Shipping v V/O Exportchleb [1966] 1 QB 630; British Telecommunications Plc v HMRC [2023] UKUT 00122
Standard of proof in excise duty assessments
None explicitly stated, but discussed in relation to the potential for dishonesty allegations.
Tribunal's powers to stay or debar parties
Tribunal Procedure Rules (Rules 2, 5, 8)
Outcomes
Appellants' appeal dismissed
The FTT's decision that a fair hearing was possible was not an error of law. The FTT considered the parties' positions and concluded, despite their agreement to the contrary, that a fair hearing was not impossible.
HMRC's cross-appeal dismissed
HMRC's second application to strike out was an abuse of process, as it sought to relitigate an issue already determined in the same proceedings.