Edwards v Bairstow [1956] AC 14

The constitutional foundation of every appeal from the First-tier Tax Tribunal. Edwards v Bairstow decides that a factual determination which no reasonable tribunal could have reached is itself an error of law, and, in doing so, gives the appellate courts the only general route into findings of fact.

Why This Case Still Matters

Appeals from the First-tier Tax Tribunal to the Upper Tribunal lie only on a point of law (s11 Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007). The FTT is the tribunal of fact, and its findings of fact are ordinarily unassailable. Edwards v Bairstow is the authority that explains the one route by which a finding of fact becomes a point of law. Almost every serious appeal from the FTT that is not founded on a misdirection as to a statutory provision is, in substance, an Edwards v Bairstow challenge.

It is also, in its own right, the leading authority on what constitutes an “adventure in the nature of trade”: the question that determines whether a one-off transaction produces trading income or a capital gain.

The Facts

Mr Bairstow was a director of a leather manufacturing company. Mr Harrison was employed by a spinning firm. Neither was a dealer in machinery, and neither had any history of transactions of the kind in question.

In late 1946 the two men entered into a joint venture to buy a complete cotton spinning plant for £12,000. Their purpose was declared and unambiguous: immediate resale at a profit. They had no intention of operating the machinery, no premises in which to run it and no capacity to use it.

They hoped to sell the plant in a single lot. In the event they had to break it up and dispose of it in five separate lots between November 1946 and February 1948. The venture produced a net profit of £18,225 11s 3d, which the two men divided equally.

The Inspector assessed each of them to income tax under Case I of Schedule D on the footing that the transaction was an adventure in the nature of trade. They appealed to the General Commissioners.

Procedural History

The General Commissioners discharged the assessments. Their stated reason was, in essence, that this was an isolated transaction and therefore not a trade. They recorded that it was “not taxable”.

The Crown required a case to be stated. Wynn-Parry J in the High Court and, on appeal, the Court of Appeal both held that they could not interfere: the Commissioners had made a finding of fact and, on the traditional view, the courts had no jurisdiction to disturb it absent a self-evident misdirection on the face of the case stated. The Crown appealed to the House of Lords.

The Issues

1. Was the Commissioners’ determination that the transaction was not an adventure in the nature of trade a pure finding of fact, immune from appellate review?
2. If a fact-finding tribunal reaches a conclusion that no reasonable tribunal properly directing itself could reach, does that of itself constitute an error of law?
3. On these facts, was the transaction an adventure in the nature of trade?

The Ratio Decidendi

Lord Radcliffe’s formulation

The passage that is cited in tribunals every week is Lord Radcliffe’s:

“If the case contains anything ex facie which is bad law and which bears upon the determination, it is, obviously, erroneous in point of law. But without any such misconception appearing ex facie, it may be that the facts found are such that no person acting judicially and properly instructed as to the relevant law could have come to the determination under appeal. In those circumstances, too, the court must intervene. It has no option but to assume that there has been some misconception of the law and that this has been responsible for the determination.”

He added the alternative formulation that has become the working test: the court may intervene where “the true and only reasonable conclusion contradicts the determination”.

The three routes to an error of law

Distilled, Edwards v Bairstow identifies three ways in which a determination can be erroneous in point of law:

1. Bad law on the face of the decision: a misstatement or misapplication of the governing legal test.
2. No evidence: a finding for which there was no evidential foundation at all.
3. Perversity: a conclusion which, on the primary facts found, no reasonable tribunal properly instructed could have reached. This is the distinctively Bairstow route and the one that does the work in practice.

The application to the facts

On the primary facts: a purchase made solely with a view to resale, no capacity or intention to use the asset, an organised process of breaking the plant into lots, and a completed disposal programme over 15 months, the House held that the conclusion of “not a trade” was one no reasonable body of Commissioners could have reached. The isolated nature of the transaction was not determinative: an adventure in the nature of trade may be a single transaction. That is precisely what the words “adventure in the nature of” are there to capture.

Obiter Dicta and Wider Observations

Several parts of the speeches are influential but were not necessary to the decision:

• Viscount Simonds’ formulation. His Lordship’s statement of the classic doctrine, that the Commissioners’ findings cannot be overturned unless they “acted without any evidence or upon a view of the facts which could not reasonably be entertained”: is generally treated as having been stated obiter, though it is quoted as often as Lord Radcliffe’s and says materially the same thing.
• The fact/law dichotomy. Lord Radcliffe’s observations about the artificiality of the distinction between fact and law, and his acknowledgment that the categorisation of a transaction involves a question of degree, are reflective commentary rather than decision. They have nonetheless shaped the modern approach, which treats the characterisation of primary facts against a statutory standard as a question of law-application rather than pure fact.
• Primary facts versus inferences. The distinction between primary facts (what happened), and the inferences drawn from them (what it amounts to in law) runs through the speeches. It is the analytical device that makes appellate intervention possible without turning every appeal into a rehearing, and it is the point on which most Bairstow arguments are actually won or lost.
• The badges of trade. The case predates the Royal Commission’s formulation of the badges of trade and does not lay them down. The factors the House relied on (motive at acquisition, the nature of the asset, the absence of any use or enjoyment, the way the disposal was organised) anticipate them, and were later systematised in Marson v Morton [1986] STC 463.

How the Test Is Applied Today

The Bairstow jurisdiction is now exercised most often on appeals from the FTT to the Upper Tribunal, and the appellate courts have repeatedly emphasised how narrow it is.

• Georgiou v Customs & Excise Commissioners [1996] STC 463. Evans LJ warned that it is essential the appellant identify the finding said to be perverse with precision, and not use the label to reopen the evidence. An appellant must show that the tribunal’s conclusion was one to which no reasonable tribunal could come, not merely one the appellate court would not have reached.
• Procter & Gamble UK v HMRC [2009] EWCA Civ 407. The Court of Appeal stressed that where a statutory word requires an evaluative judgment on multi-factorial facts, there is often a range of permissible answers, and the tribunal’s choice within that range is not an error of law. Appellate courts should resist the temptation to characterise a disagreement about evaluation as a point of law.
• HMRC v Pendragon plc [2015] UKSC 37. The Supreme Court confirmed that where the FTT has failed to make a finding on a material matter, or has reached a conclusion unsupported by its own findings, the Upper Tribunal is entitled, indeed obliged, to intervene.
• Degorce v HMRC [2017] EWCA Civ 1427. A recent illustration in the trading context: the FTT’s multi-factorial evaluation of whether an activity was a trade was upheld because it was within the range of permissible conclusions.

Practitioner Application

Running a Bairstow challenge

• Identify the specific finding. Name the paragraph of the FTT decision and state precisely what the finding was. A generalised complaint that the tribunal “got it wrong” will be refused permission.
• Separate primary facts from inference. The strongest challenges accept the primary facts entirely and attack the inference drawn from them. The weakest attempt to re-argue the evidence.
• Look for the missing finding. Following Pendragon, a failure to make a finding on a material issue, or a conclusion that does not follow from the findings actually made, is often a cleaner error of law than perversity.
• Check for inadequate reasons. A decision that does not enable the parties to understand why they won or lost is separately appealable, and is frequently easier to establish than perversity.
• Be realistic about the range. Where the statutory question is evaluative (was the behaviour deliberate, was the excuse reasonable, was this a trade) there is usually a range of permissible answers, and Procter & Gamble makes the appeal very difficult.

Preventing the need for one

• Put the documentary evidence in and ask the FTT for express findings on each contested factual issue.
• Where a witness’s state of mind matters, as it does in every deliberate-behaviour and reasonable-excuse case, call the witness. Findings about intention are almost impossible to disturb on appeal, so they must be secured at first instance.
• If the decision omits a material finding, consider an application to the FTT for correction, review or clarification before appealing.

Frequently Asked Questions