UT/2019/000009 - [2024] UKUT 00176 (TCC)

Under this ground it is argued that the FTT erred in law by failing to give sufficient reasons for its conclusion that Mr Ali was “holding” the tobacco for Regulation 10(1) purposes. As explained by the Court of Appeal’s comments on the duty to give reasons in Flannery v Halifax Estate Agencies [1999] EWCA Civ 811 (p 381), reasons should be such that a losing party can understand why they have lost (especially because without reasons they will not know whether the court or tribunal misdirected itself and whether they have an available appeal on the substance of the case).

We have already set out much of the content of the FTT’s reasoning for why it rejected Mr Ali’s case that he was simply an employee/driver of Palm Palace and could not be “holding” the tobacco (and which appeared in FTT [24] to [30]). The main issue is whether the FTT’s reasoning was sufficient to enable Mr Ali to understand why the FTT considered he was “holding” the tobacco for Regulation 10(1) purposes. We agree with HMRC that it was. Mr Ali’s case was to the effect that he was not “holding” because he was simply an employee/ driver of Palm Palace. The FTT addressed that case with sufficient reasons by explaining that Mr Ali was holding because he did not contest that he had physical possession of the goods, he was responsible for the lock up unit and van, he bought and paid for the goods and because of the contrast with the way he had put his case previously.