Rettig Heating Group UK Ltd, R (on the application of) v The Commissioners for HMRC
[2024] UKUT 315 (TCC)
Coopervision Lens Care Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC
23 April 2024
[2024] UKFTT 351 (TC)
First-tier Tribunal
HMRC wanted more documents in a tax case. The judge said no because HMRC's request was unclear, asked for too much, and was made too late. The judge focused on making the hearing fair, not giving HMRC everything they wanted.
Key Facts
- •CooperVision Lens Care Limited appealed an HMRC PAYE determination regarding a share disposal.
- •HMRC applied for a disclosure order after receiving witness evidence, seeking four categories of documents.
- •The application underwent changes, causing confusion regarding the scope of the requested disclosure.
- •The Tribunal considered the proportionality and necessity of the disclosure request in light of the overriding objective and relevant case law.
- •The substantive hearing was scheduled for November 2024.
Legal Principles
Standard disclosure requires parties to disclose documents they intend to rely on (Rule 27, Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009).
Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009, Rule 27
The Tribunal has discretionary power to order document production (Rule 5(3)(d)). Disclosure must be proportionate to the case's importance, complexity, anticipated costs, and party resources (Rule 2(2)(a)). It should focus on issues in dispute to prevent unfair advantage or disadvantage.
Rule 5(3)(d), Rule 2(2)(a) Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009; Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc [2020] UKFTT 321 (TC); Revenue and Customs Comrs v Smart Price Midlands Ltd, Revenue and Customs Comrs v Gardner Shaw UK Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 841 , [2019] 1 WLR 5070; Tower Bridge GP Ltd v Revenue and Customs Comrs [2016] UKFTT 54 (TC)
In cases of adequate initial disclosure, specific disclosure applications must show necessity to deal justly with the case (preventing unfair advantage/disadvantage), likelihood of material existence and control, prior nondisclosure, likelihood of material discovery upon order, and proportionality.
Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc [2020] UKFTT 321 (TC)
While documentary evidence is crucial for testing witness recollection (Gestmin SGPS SA v Credit Suisse (UK) Ltd [2013] EWHC 3560 (Comm)), this doesn't override the principles of proportionality and necessity for disclosure.
Gestmin SGPS SA v Credit Suisse (UK) Ltd [2013] EWHC 3560 (Comm)
Outcomes
HMRC's application for disclosure was refused.
HMRC failed to clearly demonstrate that the requested documents were reasonably required by the Tribunal for a fair determination of the issues, considering the overriding objective and proportionality. The request lacked clarity, was potentially disproportionately onerous, and was unduly delayed.
Similar Cases
Milton Keynes Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v The Commissioners for HMRC
[2024] UKFTT 1046 (TC)
Essex Trading Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC
[2024] UKFTT 69 (TC)
Newcastle United Football Company Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC
[2024] UKFTT 223 (TC)
Thariq Mohammed v The Commissioners for HMRC
[2023] UKFTT 375 (TC)