TC09654 - [2025] UKFTT 01202 (TC)

The Appellant contends, by reference to the Court of Appeal judgment in LIFE Services Ltd v HMRC [2020] EWCA Civ 452 paragraph 99, that where a term is undefined in VAT legislation the meaning of the term is to be determined by considering its usual meaning in everyday language while also taking account of the context in which it occurs and the purposes of the rules of which it forms part.

It was noted that no previous Tribunal or Court has identified a discernible statutory purpose for the Excepted Item (see consideration in the Innocent judgment regarding accepted social policy underpinning Item 1 but the absence of a policy for the exceptions generally, paragraphs 20 – 21 and 23). As a consequence we are required to interpret the everyday language in context.

By reference to the Supreme Court judgement in HMRC v SSE Generation Ltd [2023] UKSC 17, the Appellant submits that the Tribunal may consider dictionary definitions when ascertaining the usual meaning of the term. Further, referencing the judgment of Nugee LJ in HMRC v Dolphin Drilling Ltd [2024] EWCA Civ 1 (paragraph 41) and the Court of Appeal in Urenco Chemplants Ltd b HMRC [2022] EWCA Civ 1587 (at paragraphs 106 – 108, adopting the reasoning of Lord Neuberger in R (oao Ghai) v Newcastle City Council [2010] EWCA Civ 59 at paragraphs 21 – 26 and 33)the approach may be an iterative one driven by context. That is particularly so in a situation in which the statutory language adopted by Parliament has no statutory definition and no established special legal or technical meaning.

HMRC appeared to broadly accept the Appellant’s suggested approach to the interpretation of the legislation though differed on the outcome of such an approach. We therefore adopt that approach.