SDLT Case Law: Court Decisions That Affect Your Refund

Why case law matters for your refund

Stamp Duty Land Tax is created by the Finance Act 2003, and HMRC sets out its interpretation in the SDLT Manual. But neither the statute nor the manual is the final word. When a taxpayer and HMRC disagree about how the law applies to a specific property, the dispute is decided by the tax tribunals — and, on appeal, by the higher courts. Those decisions become binding precedent that everyone, including HMRC, has to follow.

This matters for refunds because the most valuable SDLT arguments live in exactly the grey areas the courts have had to settle. Whether a derelict property counts as "residential" under section 116 FA 2003 determines whether it's taxed at residential or the lower non-residential rates. Whether an annexe is a separate "dwelling" decided whether Multiple Dwellings Relief applied. Whether an item is a chattel or a fixture changes the chargeable consideration the tax is calculated on.

A claim built on a misreading of these cases will fail at the first HMRC enquiry. A claim built on a correct reading — and honest about which way the law has moved — stands up. The decisions below are grouped by the legal question each one answers. Read together, they show a clear direction of travel: the courts have steadily narrowed the room for aggressive "it wasn't really residential" arguments, while leaving genuine cases — true dereliction, genuinely separate dwellings, genuinely moveable chattels — intact.

The case names appear throughout our blog; this is the single page that explains them.

Cases on residential property classification

Mudan v HMRC [2025] EWCA Civ 799

Court of Appeal · 2025 · HMRC won

What happened: Mr and Mrs Mudan bought a London house for around £1.75m that was in severe disrepair — it needed rewiring, a new boiler, new windows, and basement tanking, and had been left vandalised. They argued it was not "suitable for use as a dwelling" at completion and should be taxed at the lower non-residential rates.

What the court decided: The appeal was dismissed. "Suitable for use as a dwelling" does not mean ready for immediate occupation — a building is residential if it retains the fundamental characteristics of a dwelling, even where it needs significant repair or renovation before anyone can move in.

What this means for refund claims: This is the case HMRC now leans on hardest. A house that is simply dated, damaged, or mid-renovation is residential — "it needed work" is not a route to non-residential rates. Only genuine, structural unsuitability gets you there.

Hyman & Goodfellow v HMRC [2022] EWCA Civ 185

Court of Appeal · 2022 · HMRC won

What happened: These conjoined appeals involved houses sold with substantial land — the Hymans' farmhouse with 3.5 acres (garden, a barn and a meadow), and the Goodfellows' house with 4.5 acres (including a stable yard and paddocks). The buyers argued the surplus land was not residential, so the whole purchase qualified for the cheaper mixed-use rates.

What the court decided: The taxpayers lost. "Grounds" in section 116 has a wide meaning, there is no acreage limit, and there is no test of whether the land is "needed" for the reasonable enjoyment of the house. Land that forms the grounds of a dwelling is residential.

What this means for refund claims: A big garden, paddock or meadow sold with a house will almost always be residential. Mixed-use claims need a genuine commercial use of the land (a let paddock under a grazing lease, a working trade), not just open space.

P N Bewley Ltd v HMRC [2019] UKFTT 65 (TC)

First-tier Tribunal · 2019 · Taxpayer won

What happened: A company bought a derelict bungalow in Weston-super-Mare intending to demolish it. The property was riddled with asbestos and its heating system and pipework had been stripped out; a survey said it required demolition.

What the court decided: The tribunal held the bungalow was not suitable for use as a dwelling at the effective date, so non-residential rates applied — and the 3% additional-dwelling surcharge did not.

What this means for refund claims: Bewley is the leading taxpayer-favourable "uninhabitable" case, but it sits at the extreme end: genuine dereliction, beyond ordinary repair.

Cases on Multiple Dwellings Relief

Fiander & Brower v HMRC [2021] UKUT 156 (TCC)

Upper Tribunal · 2021 · HMRC won

What happened: The buyers purchased a detached house with an attached annexe — the annexe had its own French doors, sitting room, kitchen/utility, bedroom and shower room, but was also linked to the main house by a corridor with no separating door. They claimed Multiple Dwellings Relief on the basis that the annexe was a second dwelling.

What the court decided: No MDR. To be a separate single dwelling, a unit must offer a reasonable degree of privacy and security — not just the facilities to sleep, eat and wash. The open corridor meant the annexe was not sufficiently independent. The test is multi-factorial; separate utilities, council tax or title may help but are not legal requirements.

What this means for refund claims: Fiander is the benchmark for annexe/granny-flat claims — a lockable separating door, independent access and genuine self-containment matter far more than a separate council-tax band.

Cases on uninhabitable property

Fish Homes Ltd v HMRC [2020] UKFTT 180 (TC)

First-tier Tribunal · 2020 · HMRC won

What happened: A company bought a buy-to-let flat in a Greenwich block later found to be covered in potentially flammable ACM cladding, which restricted letting and raised serious fire-safety concerns. It argued the danger made the flat "not suitable for use as a dwelling," so non-residential rates should apply.

What the court decided: The flat was a dwelling. For a defect to make a property unsuitable, it must be serious enough that a reasonable person would decide against occupying it; a breach of building regulations is not enough on its own, and here neither the local authority nor the fire authority had prohibited occupation.

What this means for refund claims: A serious defect — even dangerous cladding — does not by itself reclassify a flat as non-residential if the property can still be occupied. This points the same way as Mudan and Bewley above: the bar for "not a dwelling" is genuine incapability of use, not the presence of a serious but remediable defect.

Cases on chattels apportionment

Orsman v HMRC [2012] UKFTT 227 (TC)

First-tier Tribunal · 2012 · HMRC won

What happened: A buyer paid £250,000 for a house plus £8,000 for "fixtures, fittings and chattels" — placing the land consideration exactly on the old £250,000 threshold. £800 of that £8,000 was for fitted units with a worktop in the garage, attached to a worktop that was itself fixed to battens on the wall.

What the court decided: Applying the degree-of-annexation test, the tribunal held the fitted units were fixtures — part of the land — not chattels. That added £800 to the chargeable consideration, tipping the purchase over £250,000 and into a far higher SDLT charge.

What this means for refund claims: Only genuinely moveable items — free-standing white goods, carpets, curtains — are deductible as chattels. Anything fixed to the building is a fixture and stays in the chargeable consideration. Over-aggressive apportionment doesn't just get disallowed; if your figure sits near a threshold, a small reclassification can cost far more than the deduction was worth.

How to apply this to your own claim

The pattern across these six cases is consistent: the courts reward honest, well-evidenced claims and punish optimistic ones. A genuinely derelict property (Bewley), a truly self-contained annexe (the standard Fiander sets), or a free-standing appliance (the line Orsman draws) can support a real refund. A tired-but-liveable house (Mudan), a big garden (Hyman), a defective-but-occupiable flat (Fish Homes), or a fitted kitchen dressed up as a chattel (Orsman) cannot.

Before you claim, ask which case your property looks most like — and be honest about the answer, because HMRC will apply the same precedents. A claim that survives an enquiry is one that would survive these judgments. To gauge which route fits your purchase, our refund checker screens all four in about 90 seconds.

For most buyers, a specialist working on a no-win, no-fee basis is the safest route: they assess your claim against current case law before anything is filed, and only charge if it succeeds. If you'd rather handle it yourself and keep 100% of the refund, the DIY Claim Pack walks you through the same checks.