header-logo header-logo

22 March 2013
Issue: 7553 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Customs & excise

R (on the application of First Stop Wholesale Ltd) v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2013] EWCA Civ 183, [2013] All ER (D) 105 (Mar)

It was settled law that goods could be liable to forfeiture on grounds that had not been advanced or even known at the point of seizure or detention. Further, there was no requirement that, when detaining goods, the reason for their detention had to be given. There was no requirement in the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 for any formal written notice of detention and it was not necessary for the notice required by para 1(1) of Sch 3 of the 1979 Act to be given at the time of seizure. Even in the case of seizure, notice was not required where goods were seized in the presence of the owner or the owner’s agent. Further, the fundamental principle of public law, namely, that, where the public law illegality concerned the decision-making process rather than the end result, the decision would be susceptible to judicial review and liable to be set

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Debevoise & Plimpton—Mary Lavelle

Debevoise & Plimpton—Mary Lavelle

Debevoise expands London secondaries team with addition of Mary Lavelle

Excello Law—Hestia Private Client

Excello Law—Hestia Private Client

Excello Law welcomes ex-Irwin Mitchell team to launch Hestia Private Client

Carpmaels & Ransford—Christopher Stothers

Carpmaels & Ransford—Christopher Stothers

Heavyweight patent litigator will bolster Carpmaels Ransford’s rapidly growing Litigation team as firm marks its 250th anniversary

NEWS
Lawyers have welcomed plans to create specialist rape and serious sex offences courtrooms at every Crown Court
The Supreme Court has settled a long-running dispute over part-time workers: unfavourable treatment need be a significant or effective cause, not the sole cause
Arbitration may be private, but its confidentiality is no impenetrable shield. Writing in NLJ this week, James Glaysher of Kingsley Napley examines when courts will permit arbitral material to surface in open litigation
A telecoms operator may be able to hold over under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, yet still be unable to secure a renewal: an outcome described as a legal ‘paradox’
The Financial Reporting Council’s revised Audit Enforcement Procedure will alter the balance of power in corporate investigations
back-to-top-scroll