The Khan Partnership's notable legal cases

The Khan Partnership has been involved in several notable cases, many involving novel legal argumements. Some of our work highlights appear below.

Notable cases

The Khan Partnership has been involved in several notable cases, many involving novel legal argumements. Some of our work highlights appear below.


Our Communications Ltd v HMRC [2012] UKFTT 604 (TC). We successfully acted for a company in an appeal to the First-tier Tribunal against HMRC’s denial of repayment of VAT input tax in the sum of £9.7m.

Brayfal Ltd v HMRC [2010] UKFTT 99 (TC). The Khan Partnership instructed by Brayfal Ltd in its appeal to the First-tier Tribunal against the decision of HMRC to refuse repayment of input tax totalling £1.09m on the basis that the company was allegedly involved in MTIC fraud tax “contra trading” fraud.

Fonecomp Limited v HMRC [2015] EWCA Civ 39. We acted for Fonecomp Limited in appealing a decision of the Upper Tribunal before the English Court of Appeal against the refusal by HMRC to repay VAT input tax in the sum of £184,000.  This was the leading case to consider HMRC’s flagship contra-trading policy.

Tomy (UK) Ltd v HMRC [2008] EWCA Civ 1085. The Khan Partnership acted for Tomy UK instructed by the appellant in a Court of Appeal hearing on the classification of certain products for the purposes of EU customs duty.

Megtian Limited v HMRC [2010] EWHC 18 (Ch). We acted for the appellant in an appeal against the denial of an input tax claim by HMRC in the amount of £5.9m.

A G Villodre S L v HMRC [2014] UKFTT 825 (TC). Our client was A G Villodre S L in an appeal against a C18 Post Clearance Demand Note for £284,000 said to be due by way of customs duty on goods whose origins had allegedly been mis-declared. 

R (on the application of Huntingwood Trading Limited) v HMRC [2009] EWHC 290 (Admin). We acted for the appellant in a claim for judicial review of HMRC’s refusal to pay claims for drawback of excise duty in the sum of around £1.3m.

Emblaze Mobility Solutions Ltd v HMRC [2010] UKFTT 410(TC); [2014] UKFTT 0679 (TC). Our client was a company in an appeal to the First-tier Tribunal against the decision of HMRC to deny repayment of input tax in the amount of £8.8m and in an application for interest in relation to the sums withheld under section 84(8) VAT Act 1994. We subsequently acted for the appellant in proceedings before the Chancery Division of the High Court in respect of HMRC’s intention to exercise a set-off against the sums to which the appellant was entitled pursuant to the decision of the First-tier Tribunal and represented the company in a claim for interest totalling £1.6m in relation to sums withheld under section 84(8) VAT Act 1994.

Masstech Corporation Limited v HMRC [2011] UKFTT 649 (TC). The Khan Partnership was instructed in an appeal to the First-tier Tribunal against HMRC’s decision to withhold input tax totalling £12m.

S&I Electronics Ltd v HMRC [2015] UKUT 0162 (TCC). We acted for a company appealing HMRC’s denial of its entitlement to deduct input tax in the amount of £4.3m to the Upper Tribunal.

Royal and Sun Alliance Insurance plc and Exel Logistique SA v MK Digital FZE (Cyprus) Ltd and others [2006] EWCA Civ 629. The Khan Partnership (formerly Hassan Khan & Co) successfully acted for the appellant in an appeal from the decision of Aikens J ([2005] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 679) dismissing its application to set aside for lack of jurisdiction the proceedings brought by the claimants Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance plc and Exel Logistique SA arising out of the loss of a consignment of mobile phones. The appeal was allowed on the basis that Exel had failed to make out a good arguable case under either Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road ("CMR") article 31.1, or under articles 2 or 5.1 of the Brussels Convention. Exel's claim form was subsequently set aside.

Deluni Mobile Limited v HMRC (2005) Decision 19205. We successfully acted for the Appellant under rule 19(4) VAT Tribunal Rules 1986, which permitted the Tribunal to allow an appeal if any party fails to comply with any tribunal direction. The appeal was allowed and the appellant was awarded costs on an indemnity basis.

Brother International Europe Limited v HMRC (Decision Number: C 00248). We acted for a company bringing three consolidated appeals in the VAT & Duties Tribunal challenging HMRC’s classification of products for the purposes of EU customs duty.

HMRC v Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and another; HMRC v ToTel Ltd [2007] EWHC 422 (Ch). We acted for ToTel Ltd in the second appeal brought by HMRC in the Chancery Division of the High Court against the decision of the tribunal  to award interest under section 84(8) VAT 1994.

R (on the application of Mobile Export 365 Ltd and another) v HMRC [2006] EWHC 311 (Admin). We were instructed by a company seeking offset of interest on the repayment of input tax amounting to £10m, which had been withheld by HMRC on the grounds that the company was purportedly involved in a carousel fraud.

Bond House Systems Ltd v HMRC (Decision Number: v 18100); (C-484/03). Hassan Khan acted for a company before the VAT & Duties Tribunal in an appeal against HMRC’s refusal to repay input tax in the sum of £16.3m. The Tribunal’s decision was appealed to the Chancery Division of the High Court, which in turn referred the case to the European Court of Justice as a joint case for a preliminary hearing. The ECJ ruled in the company’s favour, stating that there had occurred, on HMRC’s part, a breach of the general principles of Community law.


The Khan Partnership acted on an arrest warrant challenge and defended extradition proceedings between a British individual arrested in Las Vegas, USA on a request from the Federal Republic of Germany. Arrest was made under an arrest warrant issued by the District Court of Frankfurt, Germany on the basis of allegations of jointly committed large scale evasion of Value Added Tax totalling USD $ 189 million. 

AU. We were instructed by the defendant in an appeal after conviction for a complex international Missing Trader Intra Community (MITC) VAT fraud allegedly involving tax losses of £56.5m between UK, Europe and Dubai.  The Court of Appeal subsequently quashed the convictions. Please see our News section for press coverage of this case.

Representing a Political Party. The Khan Partnership acted for a major political party. As part of an investigation the financial affairs of the political party were closely examined.  This led to an investigation into money laundering and the subsequent withdrawal of UK banking facilities to the party. We represented the party in relation to cash seizures running into hundreds of thousands of GBP and negotiated an extension of banking facilities with major UK based banks.

Pervez Musharraf. The Khan Partnership successfully represented former President and Chief of Army Staff of the Republic of Pakistan, General Pervez Musharraf, when attempts were made to have INTERPOL issue a Red Notice for his arrest in connection with the alleged involvement in the assassination of Benazir Bhutto.

T v R. We have assisted a defendant in a complex international money laundering case.  The allegation was that the defendant ran a foreign exchange bureau which was the cover for a large scale money laundering operation.  The prosecution alleged that criminal proceeds worth £5m passed through the business over a four-month period. The first defendant was convicted of three money laundering offences and received separate terms of imprisonment totalling 14 years. We were instructed after the trial and sentence to advise on the possibility of appeal. After reviewing the evidence and trial process we identified several possible grounds of appeal to be pursued.   


Pineway Ltd v London Mining Company Ltd and another [2010] EWHC 1143 (Comm). We acted in the London Commercial Court for the applicant, London Mining Company Ltd, in seeking pre-action disclosure in in order to assess whether there was a breach of contractual obligations.

Barclays Capital PLC v Nylon Capital LLP [2010] EWHC 1139 (Ch). We successfully acted for the defendant in respect of the Court’s determination of whether an expert had jurisdiction to hear a dispute under an expert determination clause in a contract. The defendant was appointed as an investment manager to a Hedge Fund holding USD500 million of Barclay’s Capital Funds and USD124 million of profits. A dispute arose on to whether fees due to the claimant and the defendants powers to hold and allocate profits.

Portpin v Vladimir Antonov Case No. 2012-Folio-828. We successfully acted for the applicant, Portpin Limited, former owners of Portsmouth City Football Club. The applicant issued and served a claim against Mr Antonov for defaulted payments under a sale and purchase agreement. Judgement granted in favour of the applicant in the Commercial Court.


Bredenkamp & Others –v- European Commission, United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland, Council of the European Union Case T-145/09. The Khan Partnership successfully represented 21 parties in proceedings brought before the European Court of First Instance seeking amendment of EC Commission Regulations and Council Regulations sanctions in Zimbabwe to 21 named parties. The case was successfully resolved in the Applicant’s favour who were removed from EC sanctions lists and their costs were paid.