Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
  Mr Rupert Davies of counsel appeared for the Respondent at the hearing relying on oral submissions and a written skeleton argument dated 30 December 2025.�
  I am grateful to the parties and I have considered all their written and oral submissions.
  An appeal to the Upper Tribunal from a decision of the FTT can only be made on a point of law (section 11 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007). The Upper Tribunal has a discretion whether to give permission to appeal. It will be exercised to grant permission if there is a realistic (as opposed to fanciful) prospect of an appeal succeeding, or if there is, exceptionally, some other good reason to do so: Lord Woolf MR in Smith v Cosworth Casting Processes Ltd [1997] 1 WLR 1538 .
  It is therefore the practice of this Chamber of the Upper Tribunal to grant permission to appeal where the grounds of appeal disclose an arguable error of law in the FTT's decision which is material to the outcome of the case or if there is some other compelling reason to do so.
The Applicant is a Slovakian freight transport company whose vehicles were involved in four sequential seizures of smuggled hand rolling tobacco ("HRT") and cigarettes in 2018 - 2019. On each occasion the vehicle used to transport the goods was seized and the Border Force offered to restore the vehicle for a fee:
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.