“55 Amount of tax chargeable: general (1) The amount of tax chargeable in respect of a chargeable transaction to which this section applies is determined in accordance with subsections (1B). (1A) This section applies to any chargeable transaction other than a transaction to which paragraph 3 of Schedule 4A or step 4 of section 74(1A) (higher rate for certain transactions) applies. (1B) If the transaction is not one of a number of linked transactions, the amount of tax chargeable is determined as follows— Step 1 Apply the rates specified in the second column of the appropriate table below to the parts of the relevant consideration specified in the first column of the appropriate table. “The “appropriate table” is— (a) Table A, if the relevant land consists entirely of residential property, and (b) Table B, if the relevant land consists of or includes land that is not residential property.” (a) Table A, if the relevant land consists entirely of residential property, and (b) Table B, if the relevant land consists of or includes land that is not residential property.”
“the land an interest in which is the main subject-matter of the transaction.”
“116 Meaning of “residential property” (1) In this Part “residential property” means – (a) a building that is used or suitable for use as a dwelling, or is in the process of being constructed or adapted for such use, and (b) land that is or forms part of the garden or grounds of a building within paragraph (a) (including any building or structure on such land), or (c) an interest in or over land that subsist for the benefit of a building within paragraph (a) or of land within paragraph (b) and “non-residential property” means any property that is not residential property.” (a) a building that is used or suitable for use as a dwelling, or is in the process of being constructed or adapted for such use, and (b) land that is or forms part of the garden or grounds of a building within paragraph (a) (including any building or structure on such land), or (c) an interest in or over land that subsist for the benefit of a building within paragraph (a) or of land within paragraph (b) and “non-residential property” means any property that is not residential property.”
“Transactions to which this Schedule applies … (2) A transaction is within this sub-paragraph if its main subject-matter consists of— (a) an interest in at least two dwellings, or (b) an interest in at least two dwellings and other property.” (a) an interest in at least two dwellings, or (b) an interest in at least two dwellings and other property.”
“Transactions are “linked” for the purposes of this Part of this Act if they form part of a single scheme, arrangement or series of transactions between the same vendor and purchaser or, in either case, persons connected with them.”
“119 Meaning of “effective date” of a transaction (1) Except as otherwise provided, the effective date of a land transaction for the purposes of this Part is (a) the date of completion, or (b) such alternative date as the Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs may prescribe by regulations. (2) Other provision as to the effective date of certain descriptions of land transaction is made by— section 44(4) (contract and conveyance: contract substantially performed without having been completed), ... section 44A(3) (contract providing for conveyance to third party), section 45A(8) (contract providing for conveyance to third party: effect of transfer of rights), section 46(3) (options and rights of pre-emption) …” (a) the date of completion, or (b) such alternative date as the Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs may prescribe by regulations. section 44(4) (contract and conveyance: contract substantially performed without having been completed), ... section 44A(3) (contract providing for conveyance to third party), section 45A(8) (contract providing for conveyance to third party: effect of transfer of rights), section 46(3) (options and rights of pre-emption) …”
“Case management powers 5. —(1) Subject to the provisions of the 2007 Act and any other enactment, the Tribunal may regulate its own procedure. (2) The Tribunal may give a direction in relation to the conduct or disposal of proceedings at any time, including a direction amending, suspending or setting aside an earlier direction. (3) In particular, and without restricting the general powers in paragraphs (1) and (2), the Tribunal may by direction— … (e) deal with an issue in the proceedings as a preliminary issue; …”
“Relevant Principles 8. What are the relevant principles governing an application of this kind? It seems to me that the starting point is the overriding objective …Thus, the court must ensure that the parties are on an equal footing; that the case - in particular, here, the quantum trial - is dealt with proportionately, expeditiously and fairly; and that an appropriate share of the court's resources is allotted, taking into account the need to allot resources to other cases. 9. More particularly, as it seems to me, a court when considering a contested application at the 11th hour to adjourn the trial, should have specific regard to: a) The parties' conduct and the reason for the delays; b) The extent to which the consequences of the delays can be overcome before the trial; c) The extent to which a fair trial may have been jeopardised by the delays; d) Specific matters affecting the trial, such as illness of a critical witness and the like; e) The consequences of an adjournment for the claimant, the defendant, and the court.”
“Hearings in a party’s absence 33. If a party fails to attend a hearing the Tribunal may proceed with the hearing if the Tribunal— (a) is satisfied that the party has been notified of the hearing or that reasonable steps have been taken to notify the party of the hearing; and (b) considers that it is in the interests of justice to proceed with the hearing.”
“Apologies for not writing previously and attending the hearing. Unfortunately, both co-director Rupert Cardash and I were unable to attend due to severe medical problems. We were also both unaware that medical evidence would be required prior to the hearing and in any event, it was difficult to communicate with any of the doctor's providing treatment until yesterday. In addition, we were not given enough time to provide for further witness statements and further information regarding the building program and how the new build incorporates the existing basement and walls. This will be available in the next couple of days, which I will forward to you. This is a unique case with our original advisors going bust and our file regarding this matter was missing until a few days prior to the hearing and therefore no additional information could be obtained. Could we submit that these were extenuating circumstances which led to our asking for a deferment and in addition having to instruct a KC to act on our behalf literally 24 hours before the hearing. If we had been asked for this information, I am sure this could have been obtained within the original time scale. I would therefore respectfully request a deferral or any other remedial actions prior to a final decision being made. Hoping to hear from you with your response shortly.”
“I can confirm that I have spoken to the above patient who is known to suffer with acute anxiety issues and has been under the care of a specialist. I understand from the patient that over the course of the last 10 das he has had a further severe anxiety episode and thus was unable to attend his appointment yesterday.”
“Such evidence should identify the medical attendant and give details of his familiarity with the party's medical condition (detailing all recent consultations), should identify with particularity what the patient's medical condition is and the features of that condition which (in the medical attendant's opinion) prevent participation in the trial process, should provide a reasoned prognosis and should give the court some confidence that what is being expressed is an independent opinion after a proper examination. It is being tendered as expert evidence. The court can then consider what weight to attach to that opinion and what arrangements might be made (short of an adjournment) to accommodate the party's difficulties. No judge is bound to accept expert evidence: even a proper medical report falls to be considered simply as part of the material as a whole (including the previous conduct of the case) ...”
“Judges are often faced with late applications for adjournments... An adjournment is not simply there for the asking. While the court must recognise that litigants in person are not as used to the stresses of appearing in court as professional advocates, nevertheless something more than stress occasioned by the litigation will be needed to support an application for an adjournment. In cases where the applicant complains of stress-related illness, an adjournment is unlikely to serve any useful purpose because the stress will simply recur on an adjourned hearing."”
“Finally, I consider that the Tribunal was entitled to weigh up the (inadequate) sick note against all of the other material available to them. This included not only the existing medical evidence (and the fact that the sick note was broadly consistent with that other evidence, and not contrary to it) but also the fact that [the appellant] had already made three unsuccessful applications to adjourn this hearing on entirely different grounds, each without success.”
“27. …the question of whether the litigant can or cannot participate in the hearing effectively does not always have a straightforward yes or no answer. There may be reasonable accommodations that can be made to enable effective participation. The court is familiar with the need to take this approach, in particular with vulnerable witnesses in criminal cases. A similar approach may enable a litigant in poor health to participate adequately in civil litigation. But the court needs evidence in order to assess whether this can be done or not and, if it can, how. 28. the question of whether effective participation is possible depends not only on the medical condition of the applicant for an adjournment, but also, and perhaps critically, on the nature of the hearing, the nature of the issues before the court and what role the party concerned is called on to undertake. If the issues are straightforward and their merits have already been debated in correspondence, or on previous occasions, or both there may be little more that can be usefully be said. If the issues are more complex but the party concerned is capable, financially and otherwise, of instructing legal representatives in his or her place and of giving them adequate instructions their own ill health may be of little or no consequence. All depends on the circumstances as assessed by the court on the evidence put before it.”
“Overriding objective and parties' obligation to co-operate with the Tribunal 2. —(1) The overriding objective of these Rules is to enable the Tribunal to deal with cases fairly and justly.
“30. The modern approach to statutory interpretation was conveniently summarised by Lewison LJ in Pollen Estate Trustee Co Ltd v HMRC[2013] EWCA Civ 753 ;[2013] STC 1479 at [24]: “24. The modern approach to statutory construction is to have regard to the purpose of a particular provision and interpret its language, so far as possible, in a way which best gives effect to that purpose…” “24. The modern approach to statutory construction is to have regard to the purpose of a particular provision and interpret its language, so far as possible, in a way which best gives effect to that purpose…”
“32. … the question whether MDR is available involves an analysis of the “chargeable interest acquired” and whether that chargeable interest consists of an interest in at least two dwellings and other property. Paragraph 7(2)(b) explains what is to count as a “dwelling” for these purposes but is not the provision that itself confirms MDR. In our judgement it is significant that the relevant question on which availability of MDR depends involves an examination of the nature of the chargeable interest that is acquired.” … 38. When paragraph 7(2)(b) is considered in its proper context, there is a clear indication that it is referring to some physical manifestation of a dwelling on the relevant land. The most obvious indication comes from the use of the word “building”
“Assessing suitability for use as a dwelling when building requires repair or renovation 48. To recap, we have concluded as follows: (1) This issue raises a question of law. (2) The relevant wording must be construed by reference to the words used, in context, and taking into account the purpose of the legislation. That purpose is as described in Ridgway. (3) The context, particularly the various classes of building treated as suitable for use as a dwelling, suggests a focus on the fundamental characteristics and nature of a building over a period of time, rather than a snapshot of habitability, at the effective date. (4) Some guidance on the meaning of the phrase can be drawn from Fiander UT.” (1) This issue raises a question of law. (2) The relevant wording must be construed by reference to the words used, in context, and taking into account the purpose of the legislation. That purpose is as described in Ridgway. (3) The context, particularly the various classes of building treated as suitable for use as a dwelling, suggests a focus on the fundamental characteristics and nature of a building over a period of time, rather than a snapshot of habitability, at the effective date. (4) Some guidance on the meaning of the phrase can be drawn from Fiander UT.”
“58. In our opinion, the following points should be considered in determining the impact of works needed to a building on its suitability for use as a dwelling: (1) In assessing the impact of the works needed to a building in the context of determining suitability for use as a dwelling, a helpful starting point is to establish whether the building has previously been used as a dwelling. That is relevant for two reasons. First, as we said in in Fiander UT, previous use as a single dwelling is relevant in determining whether an alteration needed to a building would be a repair or renovation (because of prior use as a dwelling) or, alternatively, an adaptation or alteration, changing the building’s characteristics by making it usable as a single dwelling for the first time. Second, actual use as a dwelling is a very strong indication that the building has possessed the fundamental characteristics of a dwelling, and has previously been suitable for use as a dwelling. An assessment of the repairs and renovations needed can then be made against that backdrop and by reference to the state of the building during its actual use as a dwelling. Previous use is, of course, fact sensitive, and factors such as the length of time between the previous use as a dwelling and the effective date will be relevant. The fact of previous use as a dwelling does not mean that a building remains suitable for use as a dwelling regardless of what happens to the building and regardless of the effluxion of time. Equally, to state the obvious, the fact that there has been no previous use as a dwelling does not mean that a building is not suitable for use at the effective date. However, previous use is a highly relevant factor in the evaluation of suitability. (2) Looking at the building as at the effective date, an assessment must be made of the extent to which it has the fundamental characteristics of a dwelling, including the extent to which it is structurally sound. Is it, for instance, a desirable house which has become dilapidated and requires updating, or is it an empty shell with no main roof? Subject to the points which follow, in principle the former is likely to be suitable for use as a dwelling and the latter is not. (3) The necessary works should be identified, and their impact on suitability for use should be considered collectively. A distinction must be drawn between works needed to render a building habitable and works to be carried out to make the property “a pleasant place to live”, in the words used by the FTT at FTT [30] (such as painting and decorating). The latter do not affect suitability for use as a dwelling. (4) An assessment should be made of whether the defects in the building which require works are capable of remedy (in colloquial terms, are fixable). That assessment should take into account whether the works would be so dangerous or hazardous as to prejudice their viability (as in Bewley). If they would, then the building is unlikely to be (or remain) suitable for use as a dwelling. It should also take into account whether the works could be carried out without prejudicing the structural integrity of the building (because, for instance, the walls might collapse). If they could not, the building is unlikely to be suitable for use as a dwelling. (5) If occupation at the effective date would be unsafe or dangerous to some degree (for instance, because the building requires rewiring), then that would be a relevant factor, but would not of itself render the building unsuitable for use as a dwelling. (6) The question of whether a repair would be a “minor repair” is not irrelevant, but nor is it particularly informative in assessing suitability. While certain repairs were described as “minor” in Fiander FTT, that classification was not a reason for the decision in Fiander UT. It is too vague and abstract to form a principled basis for the overall determination of the impact of the need for repair on suitability. For the same reason, an approach which seeks to establish whether the necessary works are “fundamental” is acceptable if it is effectively shorthand for the approach we describe above, but as a freestanding test it is not particularly informative. (7) Applying the principles we have set out, the question for determination is then whether the works of repair and renovation needed to the building have the result that the building does not have the characteristics of a dwelling at the effective date, so it is no longer residential property.” (1) In assessing the impact of the works needed to a building in the context of determining suitability for use as a dwelling, a helpful starting point is to establish whether the building has previously been used as a dwelling. That is relevant for two reasons. First, as we said in in Fiander UT, previous use as a single dwelling is relevant in determining whether an alteration needed to a building would be a repair or renovation (because of prior use as a dwelling) or, alternatively, an adaptation or alteration, changing the building’s characteristics by making it usable as a single dwelling for the first time. Second, actual use as a dwelling is a very strong indication that the building has possessed the fundamental characteristics of a dwelling, and has previously been suitable for use as a dwelling. An assessment of the repairs and renovations needed can then be made against that backdrop and by reference to the state of the building during its actual use as a dwelling. Previous use is, of course, fact sensitive, and factors such as the length of time between the previous use as a dwelling and the effective date will be relevant. The fact of previous use as a dwelling does not mean that a building remains suitable for use as a dwelling regardless of what happens to the building and regardless of the effluxion of time. Equally, to state the obvious, the fact that there has been no previous use as a dwelling does not mean that a building is not suitable for use at the effective date. However, previous use is a highly relevant factor in the evaluation of suitability. (2) Looking at the building as at the effective date, an assessment must be made of the extent to which it has the fundamental characteristics of a dwelling, including the extent to which it is structurally sound. Is it, for instance, a desirable house which has become dilapidated and requires updating, or is it an empty shell with no main roof? Subject to the points which follow, in principle the former is likely to be suitable for use as a dwelling and the latter is not. (3) The necessary works should be identified, and their impact on suitability for use should be considered collectively. A distinction must be drawn between works needed to render a building habitable and works to be carried out to make the property “a pleasant place to live”, in the words used by the FTT at FTT [30] (such as painting and decorating). The latter do not affect suitability for use as a dwelling. (4) An assessment should be made of whether the defects in the building which require works are capable of remedy (in colloquial terms, are fixable). That assessment should take into account whether the works would be so dangerous or hazardous as to prejudice their viability (as in Bewley). If they would, then the building is unlikely to be (or remain) suitable for use as a dwelling. It should also take into account whether the works could be carried out without prejudicing the structural integrity of the building (because, for instance, the walls might collapse). If they could not, the building is unlikely to be suitable for use as a dwelling. (5) If occupation at the effective date would be unsafe or dangerous to some degree (for instance, because the building requires rewiring), then that would be a relevant factor, but would not of itself render the building unsuitable for use as a dwelling. (6) The question of whether a repair would be a “minor repair” is not irrelevant, but nor is it particularly informative in assessing suitability. While certain repairs were described as “minor” in Fiander FTT, that classification was not a reason for the decision in Fiander UT. It is too vague and abstract to form a principled basis for the overall determination of the impact of the need for repair on suitability. For the same reason, an approach which seeks to establish whether the necessary works are “fundamental” is acceptable if it is effectively shorthand for the approach we describe above, but as a freestanding test it is not particularly informative. (7) Applying the principles we have set out, the question for determination is then whether the works of repair and renovation needed to the building have the result that the building does not have the characteristics of a dwelling at the effective date, so it is no longer residential property.”
“46. …Although Ladson Preston concerned multiple dwellings relief, the approach set out in that decision is applicable in contexts such as that in this appeal. In HMRC v Suterwalla[2024] UKUT 188 (TCC) , the Upper Tribunal stated as follows, at [48]-[49]: 48. In our view, the relevant points to be taken from [61] and [62] of Ladson Preston are as follows: (1) Debates about whether the definition of effective date in section 119 specifies the entirety of a day or a particular point in time have no bearing on the availability or otherwise of a particular SDLT relief or treatment, which turns on the nature of the subject matter of the chargeable transaction. (2) In such a case, the availability or otherwise of a relief or treatment depends on the nature of the chargeable interest acquired (see section 43(6)). (3) Where, as in this case, the chargeable interest is acquired at completion of the relevant land transaction, the chargeable interest acquired is the chargeable interest that exists at the time of completion. (4) Whether a particular SDLT relief or treatment applies requires an analysis of the nature of the chargeable interest acquired at completion. 49. We consider that the approach described by the UT in Ladson Preston and encapsulated in the points above is not restricted to cases where the issue is whether the subject matter of a transaction consists of multiple dwellings. It is relevant whenever the particular SDLT treatment or relief turns on the nature of the subject matter of a chargeable transaction. 47. So, the focus of the enquiry made necessary by the wording in section 116 is to determine whether the essential characteristics and nature of the chargeable interest that is acquired are those of a dwelling (rather than, say, a plot of land), notwithstanding that it needs repair and renovation.”
“43. We accept of course, that a physical manifestation of construction works cannot of itself be enough to satisfy the requirements of paragraph 7(2)(b). For example, even if foundations and the beginnings of a wall are present on a piece of land, it is still necessary to consider whether there is building that is in the process of being constructed for use as a single dwelling. However, we do not consider that question raises any of the difficulties we have outlined in paragraphs 41 and 42. The final use of the building will, in most cases, be capable of being demonstrated by reference to the planning permission granted, where relevant, architect’s plans or similar. 44. Our first conclusion on the question of construction, therefore, is that the grant of planning permission for the construction of dwellings on bare land is not in itself enough to satisfy the requirements of paragraph 7(2)(b) because, properly construed, paragraph 7(2)(b) requires some physical manifestation on the land before it can be said that there is a building in the process of being constructed for use as a single dwelling.”
“The previous vendor had already started the demolition work prior to Shinebrook Limited purchasing the property. Jeffery Field was employed by the previous vendor to confirm that work had been started in accordance with the planning permission. Shinebrook Limited carried on with the demolition work on the day of completion.”
“5. I have reviewed the planning history for the site, especially planning permission ref 2016/5209, which has been subject to two VOC applications as well as related AOC applications. … 9. I visited the site on15 April 2021 to observe works that had been started by1 May 2021 . I can confirm that the demolition and excavation operations were undertaken in accordance with the intention behind the said planning permission. 10. These works are in accordance with the planning permission ref 2016/5209. Therefore it is my opinion that the permission is extant and its development completed. 11. I provided Notice to the London Borough of Wandsworth Planning Department that the works had been started and this was acknowledged.”
“Mr Field isn’t available to give evidence, but I think what he means is that work had started on the Property on15 April 2021 .”
“1. I can confirm that prior to Shinebrook’s ownership of the property known as ‘Land at 1023-1025 Garratt Lane’ the previous owners implemented the planning consent (that has subsequently been completed) which involved the demolition of existing commercial buildings and the development of 17 apartments over basement, ground, first and second floors. The images (referenced ‘garratt lane 1.jpg (through to 6)) and plans show the previous basement area that now forms part of the new build scheme. The date of the implementation of the planning consent was as per the statutory declaration by BNP Paribas, being the1st May 2021 . The new dwellings have been constructed over the existing footprint of the previous commercial property including the previous basement area.”
“The dwellings were built on the existing footprint. Please see attached the existing and proposed plans (which were implemented) and an image of the basement below. Please see attached further pictures of the site. It is clear from the above and the initial particularised grounds of appeal that the property acquired by the Appellant was already in the physical process of adaption, the Appellants contend that the requisite manifestation of the 17 new dwellings as required by paragraph 7(2)(b) was present.”
“In order that transactions form a “series” …there must be some interdependence between them, and the fact that they are related by time and place and are effected by the same parties are casual matters which do not of themselves constitute the transaction a series.”
“Transactions are “linked” for the purposes of this Part of this Act if they form part of a single scheme, arrangement or series of transactions between the same vendor and purchaser or, in either case, persons connected with them.”