O' Connor Utilities Ltd v HMRC

Where legislation requires a notice to be given within one calendar month, the ordinary approach is to exclude the day on which the triggering event occurs and apply the corresponding date rule. The period ordinarily ends on the day bearing the same number in the following month. That rule may be displaced where the statutory language, the period selected, or the legislative context indicates a different method of calculation. A rule developed for calendar months should not automatically be extended to periods expressed in weeks or days.

The claimant challenged HMRC’s contention that its notice of claim concerning a seized tractor had been served out of time. The notice of seizure was served on 4 November 2008 and the notice of claim was served on 4 December 2008. The issue was whether the notice was given within one month under Schedule 3, paragraph 3 of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979.

1. Application granted. The court declared that the notice of claim served on 4 December 2008 was within time.
2. Schedule 3, paragraph 3 required the notice to be given within one month of the date of the notice of seizure. The reference to a month was a reference to a calendar month.
3. Following the guidance in Dodds v Walker [1981] 2 All ER 609, the day on which the triggering event occurred was excluded. The ordinary corresponding date rule then applied, so the period ended on the corresponding date in the following month.
4. The statutory language contained no indication that the ordinary rule should be displaced. The court’s conclusion rested on its construction of the statute, rather than solely on HMRC’s concession.
5. Okolo v Secretary of State for the Environment and others [1997] 4 All ER 242 illustrated a different result under a different statutory formulation. A period expressed as six weeks did not necessarily attract a rule developed for calendar months.
6. The claimant was awarded costs summarily assessed at £5,532.70, exclusive of VAT.