Key Facts
- •Appeal against a £428,364 VAT assessment issued in 2007 relating to the export of goods.
- •Appellant initially claimed goods were correctly zero-rated, later alleging VAT carousel fraud.
- •Appellant applied to amend grounds of appeal in 2023, significantly altering the case.
- •HMRC applied to strike out the appeal.
- •Appeal was significantly delayed, spanning almost six years.
Legal Principles
Principles for amending grounds of appeal: realistic prospect of success, balancing exercise considering overriding objective, explanation for delay, prejudice to other party, and compliance with Tribunal rules.
Mypay Limited v HMRC [2023] UKFTT 00890 (TC) at [22-23], Quah v Goldman Sachs International [2015] EWHC 759 (Comm) at [36-38], Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Limited v James Kemball Limited [2021] EWCA Civ 33 at [17-18]
Principles for late appeals are similar to amending grounds of appeal: real prospect of success, delay, reasons for delay, overriding objective, efficient litigation.
Martland v HMRC [2018] UKUT 178 (TCC) at [44-45]
Financial prejudice to appellant (e.g., bankruptcy) is a relevant but not necessarily determinative factor.
HMRC v Katib [2019] UKUT 0189 (TCC) at [60]
Outcomes
Application to amend grounds of appeal refused.
Significant delay in applying for amendment, no good explanation for delay, significant wasted resources and prejudice to HMRC, public interest in efficient case resolution, although amended grounds have a real prospect of success and appellant faces significant prejudice from refusal.
Appeal struck out.
No real prospect of success for original grounds of appeal following refusal to amend.
Application to admit additional documents refused.
Irrelevant following refusal to amend grounds of appeal.