- Status
- Judgment entered (judgment)
- As of
- 29 Jan 2024 · read from the court record
- Court
- Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber), from [2022] UKFTT 110 (TC) · Appellate court
- Docket
- [2024] UKUT 27 (TCC); UT/2022/000081
- Judge
- Judge Rupert Jones, Judge Vinesh Mandalia
- Filed
- 2022
- Type
- Operator v. regulator, gambling tax litigation
- Money
- HMRC estimated about GBP 447,280 (32%) of residual VAT related to property-unrelated costs; casino's appeals dismissed
- Payout
- No payout exists as of 14 Nov 2026
Status words follow the court record: a complaint states one side's allegations, only the court's orders decide anything. Filing a settlement claim is always free.
What this case is about
The Hippodrome recovered input VAT on a floorspace basis, treating its bars, restaurant and theatre as taxable; HMRC said they also supported exempt gaming. On 29 January 2024 the Upper Tribunal allowed HMRC's appeal, set aside the First-tier decision for failing to address dual use, remade the decision and dismissed the casino's underlying appeals against HMRC's decisions.
What this case is about
HMRC v Hippodrome Casino Ltd, [2024] UKUT 27 (TCC), docket UT/2022/000081, is a VAT appeal decided by the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) from the First-tier Tribunal decision [2022] UKFTT 110 (TC). The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs appealed against the casino.
The dispute concerns partial exemption. It is part of Gambling Tax Litigation, where operators contest how VAT applies to gaming income.
Who is covered
The decision binds HMRC and Hippodrome Casino Ltd for the VAT periods 2012/13 to 2018/19. The casino operates bars, a restaurant and a theatre alongside gaming.
The Upper Tribunal panel was Judge Rupert Jones and Judge Vinesh Mandalia. Players are not parties. The ruling affects how a mixed-use casino recovers input VAT, not what customers can claim.
Is there a payout?
No payout exists in this case. It is a tax dispute between a casino and the tax authority, so there is no player fund, no claim process and no deadline.
The money at stake is VAT. HMRC estimated about GBP 447,280 (32%) of residual VAT related to property-unrelated costs. The casino's appeals were dismissed.
What the court decided
On 29 January 2024 the Upper Tribunal allowed HMRC's appeal. This is a decided matter, and the status is judgment as of 14 November 2026.
The Hippodrome had recovered input VAT on a floorspace basis, treating its bars, restaurant and theatre as taxable. HMRC argued that those areas also supported exempt gaming.
The Upper Tribunal set aside the First-tier decision for failing to address dual use. It then remade the decision and dismissed the casino's underlying appeals against HMRC's decisions.
Why it matters
The ruling shows that a floorspace-based method can be overridden when areas serve both taxable and exempt gaming activity. It belongs to a line of UK casino VAT disputes that includes the London Clubs case listed below.
For how payments arising from gambling cases are treated for tax, see Are Gambling Settlement Payments Taxable, which gathers IRS, ATO, HMRC and BFH references.
Other UK rulings sit under Gambling Lawsuits in United Kingdom.
Related cases
- HMRC v London Clubs Management Ltd: an earlier HMRC tax case against a casino operator, recorded as dismissed.
Questions people ask
What did the Upper Tribunal decide in the Hippodrome case?
It allowed HMRC's appeal on 29 January 2024, set aside the First-tier decision for failing to address dual use, remade it and dismissed the casino's appeals against HMRC's decisions.
Which years does the dispute cover?
The partial exemption dispute covers the VAT years 2012/13 to 2018/19, for a casino with bars, a restaurant and a theatre.
Does the ruling give players any money?
No. It is a VAT case between a casino and HMRC. No claim process exists for players.
Who is involved
Plaintiffs: Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs (appellant)
| Defendants | Hippodrome Casino Ltd |
|---|---|
| Judge | Judge Rupert Jones, Judge Vinesh Mandalia |
| Claims |
|
Is there a payout?
No payout exists in this case as of 14 Nov 2026. The court record shows HMRC estimated about GBP 447,280 (32%) of residual VAT related to property-unrelated costs; casino's appeals dismissed.
What happens next
No future date is on the record we hold. The case is closed on the record we hold; later appeals or enforcement steps would be added here.
Timeline
2 dated steps on record, oldest first. Future dates come from court notices and can move.
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2022 | Filed |
| 29 Jan 2024 | Judgment entered |
Documents and sources
1 primary source (court file, administrator notice, regulator) and 0 secondary. Press is supporting evidence only.
- Docket: caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk
| What it supports | Source | Type | Retrieved |
|---|---|---|---|
| UT decision, issue, figures | caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk | primary | 14 Nov 2026 |
Related cases
1 case in the record share parties, claims or a settlement with this one.
| Case | Court | Status |
|---|---|---|
| London Clubs v HMRC (gaming duty on non-negotiable chips) | UK Supreme Court (from [2018] EWCA Civ 2210; [2016] UKUT 259 (TCC); [2014] UKFTT 1060 (TC)) | Dismissed |
Last checked against the sources on 14 Nov 2026. Found an error? Tell us and we correct the record with a dated note.