Key Facts
- •Mr. Henry's accountant, Mr. Wright-Anderson, repeatedly failed to comply with Tribunal directions in a previous appeal (TC/2021/01445), leading to its dismissal.
- •Instead of applying for reinstatement, Mr. Wright-Anderson filed a new appeal (TC/2023/00146) against the same HMRC decision.
- •HMRC applied to strike out the new appeal.
- •Mr. Henry, with limited literacy skills, relied on his accountant and then a friend, Ms. Anderson, for representation.
- •Mr. Adeboyejo, a newly instructed accountant, refused to participate due to unfamiliarity with the case.
Legal Principles
Cause of action estoppel only applies where the cause of action has been decided in earlier proceedings. A strike-out for procedural reasons does not constitute a decision on the merits.
Takhar v Gracefield Developments Ltd [2019] UKSC 13
Abuse of process applies where a case is struck out for want of prosecution or disregard of Tribunal rules. A second appeal on the same subject matter will be struck out unless there is a special reason not to.
Securum Finance v Ashton [2001] Ch 291; Kishore v HMRC [2021] EWCA Civ 1565
Courts and Tribunals generally do not distinguish between a litigant and their advisors; the litigant bears the consequences of their advisor's failures.
Hytec Information Systems v Coventry City Council [1997] 1 WLR 666; Katib v HMRC [2019] UKUT 189 (TCC)
Tribunal Rule 8(3)(c) allows for striking out an appeal for abuse of process.
Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009, Rule 8(3)(c); Shiner v HMRC [2018] EWCA Civ 31
Outcomes
The new appeal was struck out.
Abuse of process; no special reason to excuse the repeated failures of the appellant's accountant. The appellant's reliance on his accountant's actions did not constitute a special reason.