David Bedenham

David deals with a wide variety of VAT, excise and customs duty litigation. He is especially well known for his work in cases where allegations of fraud or abuse are made by HMRC (Kittel/Mecsec/Halifax/Fini).

David’s cases include:

AB v HMRC [2022] UKFTT
Acted for the taxpayer in this successful appeal against a £1.5million Personal Liability Notice issued to the director of a company under paragraph 19 of Schedule 24 FA 2007. HMRC alleged that the company has suppressed large volumes of sales and thereby under-declared its VAT liability. HMRC further alleged that the suppression and under-declaration was deliberate and attributable to the director. Following submission of written arguments, HMRC conceded that the appeal should be allowed.

Lynton Exports (Alsager) Ltd v HMRC [2022] UKFTT 224 (TC)
Acted for the taxpayer in this appeal against a denial of input VAT (on the Kittel basis) and a denial of the right to zero-rate (on the Mecsek basis) in relation to purchases and sales of soft drinks and confectionery. As a result of these decisions, HMRC assessed the taxpayer for £9.8 million of VAT. The Tribunal allowed the appeal in full and discharged the assessments.

International (Plywood) Importers Ltd v HMRC [2022] UKFTT 223 (TC)
Acted for the taxpayer in this appeal in which the Tribunal quashed a C18 assessment totalling over £275000. The assessment had been issued because HMRC had formed the view that certain goods imported from Brazil should be classified as “plywood” rather than “shuttering” (to be used for concrete formwork). However, the Tribunal agreed with the Appellant’s submission that, on a proper application of the GIRs, the product was correctly classified as “shuttering” (which attracts 0% duty).

Hare Wines v HMRC [2022] UKFTT (TC)
Acted for the taxpayer in this appeal against a decision refusing to grant registration under the AWRS. The Tribunal allowed the appeal finding the decision was one that could not reasonably have been arrived at.

Z Ltd v HMRC [2022]  
Acted for the taxpayer in this appeal against a £1.2 million VAT assessment (raised on the Facet basis). After a multi-day hearing, HMRC conceded the case and the appeal was allowed in full.

PTGI v HMRC [2022] UKFTT 00020 (TC)
Acted for the taxpayer in this appeal against a denial of £19 million of input VAT (on the Kittel basis) incurred on the purchase of telecommunication services/airtime. The Tribunal allowed the appeal in full.

Cantina Levorato v HMRC [2021] UKFTT 0461 (TC)
Acted for the taxpayer in this appeal against £1.3 million of excise duty assessments relating to duty suspended movements of wine (Italy to the UK).  The Tribunal allowed the appeal in full.

Ulster Metal Refiners v HMRC [2021] UKFTT 0286 (TC)
Acted for the taxpayer in this appeal against a denial (on the Kittel basis) of input VAT incurred on purchases of soft drinks. The Tribunal allowed the appeal in relation to the vast majority of the denied input tax, finding that HMRC had not properly traced the transaction chains and had therefore not established a connection with fraud.

HMRC v Martyn Perfect
Acted for the taxpayer (in the Upper Tribunal, Court of Appeal and CJEU) in this case relating to the liability of “innocent agents” for unpaid excise duty.

R Ltd v HMRC [2021]
Acted for the taxpayer in this appeal against a penalty for alleged breach of the AWRS Regulations. The Tribunal allowed the appeal in full finding that there had been no such breach.

Casa Di Vini v HMRC [2021] UKFTT 0011 (TC)
Acted for the taxpayer in this appeal against a decision refusing to grant registration under the AWRS. The Tribunal allowed the appeal finding the decision was one that could not reasonably have been arrived at.

Logfret v HMRC [2020] EWCA Civ 569
Acted for the taxpayer in the Court of Appeal in this case relating to the liability of a guarantor in respect of goods moved under duty suspension arrangements.

R (OAO JJ Management) v HMRC [2020] EWCA Civ 784
Acted for the Claimants in the Court of Appeal (and High Court) in this judicial review challenge to HMRC’s powers to conduct “informal investigations”.

HMRC v Smart Price [2019] EWCA Civ 841
Acted for the taxpayers in the Court of Appeal (and Upper Tribunal and FTT) in this case concerning the circumstances in which HMRC can be required to disclose all documents reviewed by the decision making officer (rather than simply the documents relied on).

OWD and Anr v HMRC [2019] UKSC 30
Acted for the traders in the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal in this case relating to the ability of HMRC to grant (or the High Court to order) a temporary approval to a trader pending an appeal to the FTT against a decision that would otherwise prohibit trading.
Following this decision, the law was changed to introduce a statutory temporary approvals regime for certain trade sectors.

Ulster Metal Refiners v HMRC [2017] NICA 26
Acted for the taxpayer in this Court of Appeal case relating to HMRC’s pleading obligations. David was called to the Bar of Northern Ireland on a temporary basis specifically to deal with this case. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and referred the case back to the FTT for a rehearing.

Abbey Forwarding Ltd
Acted for Abbey and its directors in various aspects of this long running litigation (including the successful defence of the misfeasance claim brought against Abbey’s directors and the successful challenge to excise and VAT assessments raised against Abbey)

R (OAO) Millennium Cash and Carry v HMRC
Acted for the successful taxpayer in this judicial review of HMRC’s decision to detain in excess of £1m of trading stock.

Swanfield and QN Hotels v HMRC [2017] UKUT 88
Acted for QN Hotels in the Upper Tribunal. QN was successful in arguing that payments made to HMRC can be allocated to a current VAT period (even if that VAT period has not yet closed) which can greatly reduce the level of default penalties a taxpayer is liable for.

Lycatel v HMRC
Acted for HMRC in this VAT appeal about the correct treatment of pre-paid telephone calling cards.

HMRC v Asda Stores Ltd [2013] UKUT 223 (TCC)
Acted for HMRC in this Upper Tribunal customs duty appeal concerning articles 29 and 32 of the Community Customs Code and valuation of imported goods.

GFT UK Retail Ltd v HMRC [2012] UKFTT 481 (TC)
Acted for HMRC in this excise duty appeal about whether alcoholic spirits in ‘gel’ form are exempt from Article 27 of Directive 92/83/EEC.

HMRC v Roll Your Own Ltd
Acted for the taxpayer in this challenge to a seizure of tobacco and ‘rolling’ machinery worth in excess of £400,000. In issue was whether tobacco products produced by RYO were ‘smokeable’ such as to create a duty point.

Orlight Ltd v Revenue & Customs [2013] UKFTT 732 (TC)
Acted for the taxpayer in this Customs duty appeal relating to the correct classification of LED light bulbs.

Ilford Cellular v HMRC [2013] UKFTT 435 (TC)
Acted for HMRC in this VAT appeal against a denial of input tax on the basis that the relevant taxable supply was connected with MTIC fraud and the Appellant should have known of that connection.

Big Misters Shipping Co v HMRC [2011] UKFTT 790 (TC)
Acted for HMRC in this appeal relating to import VAT and eligibility for Onward Supply Relief.

Opticare Ltd v Revenue & Customs [2013] UKFTT 266 (TC)
Acted for HMRC in this VAT appeal concerning s26A VATA and disallowance of input tax where consideration not paid.

TL Smith Properties Ltd & Anor v Revenue & Customs [2011] UKFTT 528 (TC)
Acted for HMRC in this VAT appeal relating to whether building works constituted an extension or enlargement of an existing building for the purposes of Group 5 of Schedule 8 of VATA.

R (OAO Seabrook Warehousing Ltd & Ors) v HM Revenue and Customs
[2010] EWCA Civ 140
Acted for the Claimants in this Judicial review of HMRC’s decision to abolish the WFE scheme in relation to alcohol export.

HMRC v Livewire Telecom Limited [2009] EWHC 15 (Ch)
Acted for HMRC in this VAT appeal concerning the circumstances in which input tax can be denied where the relevant supply is connected with fraud.

David receives instructions both from Claimants and Defendants.

On the Defendant side, David has acted for a wide range of Government Departments and regulators.

On the Claimant side, David has acted for a variety of individuals and businesses.

Examples of his work in this field include:

R (S) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Oxfordshire County Council
[2017] EWHC 1295 (Admin), [2017] 1 WLR 3641, QBD, May 26 2017
David acted for Oxfordshire County Council in this judicial review concerning age assessment and whether it was unlawful for the SSHD to detain pending transfer to a safe third country.

R v AB and others
[2017] EWCA Crim 534, [2017] 1 WLR 4071, CA, April 28 2017
David acted for the Legal Aid Agency in this Court of Appeal case concerning whether a local authority had power to prosecute solicitors (based outside of the local authority’s area) for conspiracy to defraud the Legal Aid Agency.

Bruton v Governor of Swaleside Prison
[2017] EWHC 704 (Admin)
David acted for the Defendants in this judicial review relating to legally privileged mail in the prison estate.

R (OAO) Millennium Cash and Carry v HMRC
Judicial review of HMRC’s decision to detain in excess of £1m of trading stock on the basis of a suspicion that it was not duty paid.

R (OAO Seabrook Warehousing Ltd & Ors) v HM Revenue and Customs
[2010] EWCA Civ 140 (25 February 2010)
Judicial review of HMRC’s decision to abolish the WFE scheme in relation to alcohol export.

Mathew v Attorney-General
[2013] EWHC 3009 (Admin)
Appeared for the Attorney-General in this application to the Divisional Court to discharge a vexatious litigant order made under s. 42 of the Senior Courts Act.

R (OAO SF) v Secretary of State for Justice
Acted for the SSJ in relation to a judicial review challenge to a decision to move a prisoner back to closed conditions.

A v Secretary of State for Justice
Advised the SSJ in relation to a judicial review of a decision to recall a convicted terrorist to prison for breach of a ‘computer condition’ of his licence.

Watson v HMCTS National Taxing Team
[2012] EWHC 2865 (Admin) (3 October 2012)
Acted for the National Taxing Team in this Divisional Court challenge to its approach to calculating a payment pursuant to an order under s.16 of the Prosecution of Offenders Act.

R (OAO Southern Drinks) v HM Revenue and Custom
Acted for an alcoholic drinks wholesaler in a judicial review challenge to a decision by HMRC refusing to grant interim reinstatement of a WOWGR approval pending the substantive determination by the FTT of an appeal against the revocation.

Lord Chancellor v Woodhall
[2013] EWHC 764 (QB)
Appeared for the Lord Chancellor in this appeal pursuant to Article 31 of the Criminal Defence Service (Funding) Order 2007 relating to circumstance in which a guilty plea fee rather than a cracked trial fee will be payable to counsel.

Lord Chancellor v Ian Henery Solicitors
[2011] EWHC 3246 (QB)
Appeared for the Lord Chancellor in this appeal pursuant to Article 31 of the Criminal Defence Service (Funding) Order 2007 relating to the point at which a trial can be said to have commenced.

R (OAO Brayfal) v HMRC
[2009] EWHC 3354 (Admin)
Judicial review of HMRC’s decision not to allow a trader to file its VAT returns on a monthly (as opposed to quarterly) basis.

The inquiries, inquest and investigation work that David has been instructed in includes:

• The FA review into non-recent child sexual abuse
• A cultural review at a renowned independent school
• An investigation on behalf of a professional regulator into allegations of misconduct
• Various coroner’s inquests (ranging from 1-11 days) and involving a variety of issues including deaths in custody
• Advising on various investigations conducted by Government Departments

David has advised on/acted in various matters involving:

• Director disqualification (CDDA) proceedings
• Pensions Ombudsman (particularly in relation to ‘pension liberation’)
• Bar Standards Board
• Financial Services Ombudsman
• Financial Conduct Authority
• Nursing and Midwifery Council
• Office of Fair Trading
• General Medical Council

David advises and appears both for and against local authorities in a wide range of matters including:

• Public Procurement
• Age Assessments
• Health & Safety
• Criminal Prosecutions