The First-tier Tribunal has limited jurisdiction in some matters. For example, it can instruct HMRC to reconsider an unreasonable decision to revoke a WOWGR registration (to deal in duty-suspended alcohol), but it cannot remake the decision, and it cannot award damages or compensation. In 2010 HMRC revoked Booze Direct’s registration because some of its sales were connected with inward diversion fraud. Booze Direct was not implicated in the fraud, and HMRC’s review decision was flawed.
The FTT directed HMRC to reconsider the decision in 2014, and the registration was eventually restored in 2017. In December 2019 Booze Direct claimed damages of £2.4m from HMRC because it had been unable to trade in duty-suspended drinks for seven years, alleging misfeasance in public office by HMRC.
The High Court has dismissed its claim. Section 16 FA 1994 gave exclusive jurisdiction to the FTT over the approval and revocation of WOWGR registrations, but the relief that the FTT could provide was not the same (and not closely approximate) to the remedy sought in the High Court. Therefore, there was no bar on Booze Direct running High Court and Tribunal proceedings in parallel. Booze Direct could have tried to sue HMRC for damages in 2010, but by 2019 it was prevented from doing so by the six-year time limit in the Limitation Act 1980.
Source Deloitte
Latest Posts in "United Kingdom"
- Supreme Court Clarifies VAT Grouping and Time of Supply Rules in Prudential Assurance Case
- Guernsey Seeks Companies to Support New GST Administration, Tender Deadline Approaches
- Navigating UK VAT: Key Considerations and Pitfalls in Exporting Goods
- HMRC’s New VAT Error Correction Rules: Stricter Penalties and Reporting Changes Explained
- UK Supreme Court Confirms VAT on Intragroup Fees for Former VAT Group Members
