Tax

Edgen Murray Europe Ltd v Revenue & Customs

[2014] UKFTT TC TC03739First-tier Tribunal (Tax)2014

Get the AI brief for this case

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.

Quick orient — first passages from judgment

VAT � Default surcharge � Payment on Account Regime -� VATA 1994 Section 59A - whether penalty �of �33,453 proportionate for failure to pay �1.67 million less than one day late where company profits in excess of �6 million - yes � Appeal refused.

This is an appeal against a decision by the Commissioners for HM Revenue & Customs (�HMRC�) who applied a 2% default surcharge amounting to �33,453 against Egden Murray Europe Limited (�EME�) in respect of a payment due on 31 January 2013 for a total of �1,672,658 but which was received on 1 February 2013.

Greengate Furniture Ltd v Customs and Excise Comrs [2003] V&DR 178 (VAT Decision 18280) ( �Greengate Furniture�)

Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications AB v HMRC (2007) VAT Decision 20513 ( �Sony Ericsson�)

Enersys Holdings UK Ltd v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2010] UKFTT 20 (TC) ; [2010] SFTD 387 (� Enersys Holdings� )

Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.

Read the full judgment elsewhere

Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.

More Tax cases

Wood & Anor v Revenue and Customs (Stamp Duty Land Tax - rate of SDLT applicable - whether Table A or Table B - whether the house and land included land that was not residential property - whether all of land was, or formed part of, grounds of house - Finance Act 2003, ss 55, 116)

[2026] UKFTT TC 265

New Claire Wine Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Discovery assessments - extended time limit assessments - penalty for inaccuracy in a return - deliberate inaccuracy - whether deliberate inaccuracy necessarily involves dishonesty - whether HMRC required to specifically plead and prove dishonesty - whether the FTT erred in failing to explain how the appellant's conduct might not involve dishonesty)

[2026] UKUT TCC 116

Trees v Revenue and Customs (VAT - penalties - director's liability notice (DLN) - section 60 and 61 VATA 1994 - Kittel appeal in 2020 - HMRC expressly not pleading dishonesty)

[2026] UKUT TCC 92

RSK Cars Ltd v Revenue and Customs (VAT - whether trader was entitled to use the VAT margin scheme for second-hand vehicles)

[2026] UKFTT TC 122

Alesen Direct Solutions Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Company undertaking construction work; VAT assessment; hardship application; company made advances to related entities/persons; hardship denied)

[2026] UKFTT TC 398

Rodrigues v Revenue and Customs

[2026] UKUT TCC 75

Common Room

Discussion

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.

This case is reproduced verbatim from the public judgment published by The National Archives under the UK Government's Open Government Licence v3.0. If you appear in this case and believe it should not be published — for example because your conviction was quashed on appeal, you have statutory anonymity, or for other privacy reasons — request removal here.

Tax