Case Law

In the last newsletter, I mentioned that I was waiting on three stamp duty land tax (“SDLT”) decisions I was involved in:

• A “mixed-use” appeal where 40 acres of land adjoining a dwelling was exclusively and continuously used by a farmer to grow a crop of grass once or twice a year for hay. We lost this case. See Mike Lazaridis v Revenue and Customs Comrs [2024] UKTT 925 (TC). In my view, it is a controversial decision but not “rationally unsupportable”, so realistically is unappealable.

• A reclaim of “higher rates SDLT”, which HMRC accept was paid in error (despite being in accordance with HMRC’s guidance at the time) but was denied on procedural grounds. See BTR Core Fund JPUT v Revenue and Customs Comrs [2024] UKTT 885 (TC). We also lost this case. We are appealing the decision to the Upper Tribunal. Hui Ling McCarthy KC is instructed for the appellant.

• A reclaim of SDLT, which HMRC accept was not due, but was also denied on procedural grounds. See Christian Candy v Revenue and Customs Comrs [2025] UKTT 416 (TC). We won this case. The decision was also featured in The Times. Michael Thomas KC was instructed for the appellant.

I am conducting another mixed-use appeal at the First-tier Tribunal next month. It involves land adjoining a dwelling used exclusively in connection with a livery business.

As expected, there have been several appeals on “non-residential property” and “multiple dwellings relief”.

• Non-residential property or “mixed-use”:

  Andrei Tretyakov v Revenue and Customs Comrs [2024] UKTT 1144 (TC). This “mixed-use” appeal is worth reading. Like all “mixed-use” appeals, the decision is fact specific, and it is dangerous to draw too many principles from it. Nevertheless, three things are worth noting: (1) the tribunal found that the ground floor of a building, which was in use for commercial purposes at completion, and which had permitted use for light industrial purposes and not residential purposes, was nevertheless suitable for use as part of a dwelling; (2) the tribunal took into account the description of the property in the sales brochure and the building contractor’s website, which promoted the work of the contractor in converting the property into a dwelling; and (3) the tribunal placed very little weight on the fact that the ground floor had a business rates liability.

  Richard Ball v Revenue Scotland [2024] FTSTC 6. This Scottish “mixed-use” appeal is also worth reading. This case concerns a building, which was originally designed and built as a dwelling and used as one for over 300 years before being converted and used as office premises for over 30 years. It was sold with consent for change of use, but with various items of office infrastructure in place, and the kitchen and toilet facilities were designed for office rather than domestic use. Despite this, the tribunal found that the building was “suitable for use” as a dwelling at completion.

  Bema Patel v Revenue and Customs Comrs [2025] UKFTT 373. This is an interesting case about two former dwellings partially amalgamated into a single dwelling. The planning permission prevented the dwelling from being occupied until a nearby property had been developed into five flats. The reason for this condition lay with the Council’s development plan, which sought to increase the supply of housing in the Borough. The amalgamation would result in the loss of a residential unit, contrary to the plan. However, this was negated by the development of the five flats at the nearby property. Overall, the two developments would create four additional residential units. So, the Council permitted the amalgamation but restricted occupation of the new dwelling until the flats were available for occupation. The appellant failed to persuade the tribunal that the planning condition precluded the use of the property as a dwelling and so was not in the process of being constructed or adapted for use as a dwelling at completion.
  

• Multiple dwellings relief:

  Charlie Johnson v Revenue and Customs Comrs [2025] UKFTT 50 (TC). This is a successful multiple dwellings relief appeal. The tribunal rejected HMRC’s argument that the property was not suitable for use as two dwellings because an inter-connecting door which separated the two parts could not be locked at completion.

  Sean Fitzgerald & Anor v Revenue and Customs Comrs [2025] UKFTT 89 (TC). This is an unsuccessful multiple dwellings relief appeal. A planning condition provided that the annexe “…shall not be used for any purposes other than as ancillary to the residential accommodation presently on the site as a single dwelling unit and not as a separate unit of residential accommodation in its own right”. The tribunal placed a great deal of weight on this factor even though there was evidence that the condition was unenforceable.

  Hani Gabra & Anor v Revenue and Customs Comrs [2025] UKFTT 399 (TC). This is another unsuccessful multiple dwellings relief appeal. The annexe in question did not have a toilet, sink or shower/bath and its suitability for use as a dwelling relied on the occupants using facilities in a separate building, a pool room. The appellant began to install suitable facilities in the annexe on the completion date, but after completion. The appellant argued (optimistically) that the annexe was suitable for use as a dwelling at completion or was in the process of being adapted for such use at completion.

  Nicole Behenna-Renton v Revenue and Customs Comrs [2025] UKFTT 399 (TC). This is a successful multiple dwellings relief appeal. HMRC’s best argument was that the annexe and main house did not afford their respective occupiers sufficient privacy and security because there was nothing to stop the occupier of the annexe or main dwelling going up to any of the windows or glass doors and looking in. The tribunal rejected this, finding that this could be easily remedied by putting up curtains or blinds, if the occupant of either dwelling considered it necessary. This decision is consistent with earlier cases. It is clear that to qualify as a single dwelling, a building or part of a building must provide a degree of privacy self-sufficiency and security consistent with the concept of a single dwelling.
  

• Replacement main residence:

  Afshin Sajedi & Ors v Revenue and Customs Comrs [2025] UKFTT 297 (TC). This is a lead case for several appeals. In each case, the various appellants tried to reclaim the “higher rates SDLT” by merely disposing of a fractional share of their old dwelling to their spouse. The rules have since been tightened. The “higher rates SDLT” may not be reclaimed if the purchaser or their spouse has any share of the old dwelling. The parties to the appeals came prepared to present their arguments solely on the timing of the change of law. Instead, the tribunal decided the case on statutory interpretation. It considered that the words “disposes of a major interest” concern transactions that had a “real-world impact on the rights and obligations of the parties consistent with the notion of a replacement of an only or main residence”. As the transactions in question did not appreciably affect the beneficial interests of the parties or meaningfully change the character of the parties’ relationship to the property, the statutory test was not met.