Biffin Ltd & Ors v Revenue and Customs

Under the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982, a United Kingdom-wide public body may be sued in any relevant part of the United Kingdom where the statutory jurisdictional rules are satisfied. The location of the individual officer who made a decision is not, by itself, determinative. An English court may grant interim protective relief even where another jurisdiction has jurisdiction over the substance. The appropriate forum is identified by the forum conveniens principles, including the jurisdiction with the most real and substantial connection. Interim relief may be granted where there is a serious issue to be tried, damages are inadequate, and the balance of convenience favours preserving the status quo. Enforcement or winding-up proceedings are generally abusive where the underlying debt is genuinely disputed on substantial grounds.

The claimants sought interim injunctions restraining HMRC from enforcing disputed tax liabilities and commencing insolvency proceedings. The liabilities were under appeal or subject to postponement applications before the Tax Tribunal. The claimants had commenced judicial review proceedings in England and Scotland.

HMRC challenged the jurisdiction of the London Administrative Court, contending that the relevant decisions had been made in Scotland. The court therefore considered jurisdiction, the appropriate forum, and whether interim relief should be granted pending determination of the judicial review claim.

1. Jurisdiction. The court had jurisdiction under the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982. HMRC was a Crown body domiciled throughout the United Kingdom, and the challenged decisions were those of a United Kingdom-wide organisation. The location of individual officers or correspondence offices was not determinative. The Greenpeace decision was confined to its particular facts, involving the Scottish administration.
2. Even if England lacked jurisdiction over the substance, paragraph 16 of Schedule 4 would permit an English court to grant interim protective measures. The court regarded that conclusion as clear and consistent with the preventive jurisdiction recognised in Rutherford v Lord Advocate.
3. Forum. Applying Spiliada Maritime Corp v Cansulex Ltd, HMRC had not shown that Scotland was clearly or distinctly the more appropriate forum. The dispute had its most real and substantial connection with England, including the English land, the company’s English business address and the relevant business activities.
4. Interim relief. Applying American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd, there was a serious issue to be tried. The statutory tax appeal mechanisms did not provide an effective remedy for public-law challenges based on irrationality, unreasonableness or unlawfulness. A winding-up petition in the face of a genuine and substantial dispute about the debt would ordinarily be an abuse of process, applying Mann v Goldstein. The authorities relied on by HMRC did not require a different result.
5. Damages would not adequately compensate the claimants for the commercial and reputational consequences of enforcement or winding-up proceedings. HMRC’s delay could be compensated by interest and penalties. The balance of convenience therefore favoured maintaining the status quo.
6. The injunction was granted until 28 days after final determination of the judicial review claim. The claimants gave the required undertaking in damages. HMRC was ordered to pay the claimants’ costs, summarily assessed at £19,800, payable within 21 days.

Not stated in the judgment.