Mateusz Ziomek v The Director of Border Revenue
[2022] UKFTT 444 (TC)
JTI POLSKA Sp. Z o.o. and others v Jakubowski and others
14 June 2023
[2023] UKSC 19
Supreme Court
Stuff was stolen during a delivery. The tax man wanted money from the owner. The court said the delivery company has to pay the tax man because of how things happened during the delivery, even though this was a complex legal question with different opinions.
Key Facts
- •Cigarettes stolen in transit from Poland to England.
- •Carriage subject to the CMR Convention.
- •HMRC levied £449,557 excise duty on the owner.
- •Dispute over whether the road carrier is liable for the excise duty under Article 23.4 of the CMR.
Legal Principles
Interpretation of Article 23.4 of the CMR concerning recoverable charges in case of loss.
CMR Convention, Article 23.4
Application of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969 to interpret international conventions.
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969, Articles 31 and 32
Judicial precedent and the 1966 Practice Statement regarding departure from previous decisions.
Practice Statement (Judicial Precedent) [1966] 1 WLR 1234
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The court found the 'broad interpretation' of Article 23.4 of the CMR, as established in *James Buchanan & Co. Ltd v Babco Forwarding & Shipping (UK) Ltd*, to be tenable, despite criticisms. While acknowledging the force of arguments for a 'narrow interpretation' based on the CMR's object and purpose, the court held that the broad interpretation was not untenable or manifestly wrong, and thus did not justify departing from precedent under the 1966 Practice Statement.