Key Facts
- •Claim for overpayment of VAT and interest by former chartered accountant against HMRC.
- •Settlement agreement reached in 2020 between the claimant and HMRC regarding previous VAT disputes.
- •Claimant sought damages for stress, repayment of overpaid VAT, supplements, and interest.
- •HMRC had already made payments relating to VAT credits, interest, and costs.
- •Claimant's application to amend the claim was withdrawn.
- •Defendant's application to amend the defence was agreed.
- •Issue of potential bias due to the judge's wife working at HMRC's Leeds office was raised and resolved.
- •Jurisdiction of the county court was confirmed.
- •Claim brought outside the 30-day period for repudiating the settlement agreement.
Legal Principles
Apparent bias
R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No. 2) [2000] 1 AC 119, and Magill v Porter [2001] UKHL 67
Jurisdiction of the County Court
County Courts Act 1984
Settlement of appeals under Value Added Tax Act 1994
Value Added Tax Act 1994, s.85
Repudiation of contracts
Value Added Tax Act 1994, s.85(2); Paragraph 1.10 and 3 of the settlement agreement
Costs in small claims track
CPR 27.14(2)(g)
Outcomes
Claim dismissed
Claim for stress lacked medical evidence and did not follow the Pre-Action Protocol. The settlement agreement was not repudiated within the time limit, precluding further claims. The court lacked jurisdiction to alter the terms of the self-contained settlement agreement.
Defendant's name amended
Typographical error corrected.