The Commissioners for HMRC v The Taxpayer
[2024] UKUT 12 (TCC)
L v The Commissioners for HMRC
17 May 2024
[2024] UKFTT 401 (TC)
First-tier Tribunal
Someone needed a private tax hearing because of serious mental health issues. Even though court cases are usually public, the judge decided that the risk to their health was greater than the need for openness, so they got the private hearing.
Key Facts
- •Appellant sought anonymity for a tax appeal hearing.
- •Anonymity sought on grounds of serious financial harm and serious risk to health (mental health).
- •Appellant has a history of bipolar disorder and psychotic episodes.
- •Appellant's psychiatrist confirmed a high risk of relapse under stress from a public hearing.
- •HMRC's position was neutral.
- •Appellant previously settled a discrimination claim to avoid a public hearing.
- •Appellant fears impact on current employment and future prospects if identity revealed.
Legal Principles
Open justice is the starting point in tax cases, subject to exceptions in Rule 32 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009.
Rule 32, Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009
Exceptions to open justice require a balancing exercise between open justice and Article 6 and 8 of the Human Rights Convention. Exceptions should only be made in compelling circumstances.
Articles 6 and 8, Human Rights Convention; Scott v Scott [1913] AC 417; XXX v Camden London Borough Council [2020] EWCA Civ 1468; In re S (A Child) (Identification: Restrictions on Publications [2004] UKHL 47; R v Legal Aid Board Ex p Kaim Todner [1999] QB 966
A real and immediate risk of serious harm to health (including mental health) can justify a private hearing and anonymity.
Michael Adebolajo v Ministry of Justice [2017] EWHC 3568; A v. BBC [2014] UKSC 25; Re Officer L (Northern Ireland) [2007] UKHL 36; A v British Broadcasting Corporation [2014] UKSC 25
Fear of 'commercial ruin' can also justify anonymity, but evidence of objective reasonableness is crucial.
A v British Broadcasting Corporation [2014] UKSC 25; Banerjee (No 2) v HMRC [2009] EWHC 1229 (Ch)
In tax appeals, a high bar exists for granting anonymity due to the strong public interest in open justice.
Banerjee (No 2) v HMRC [2009] EWHC 1229 (Ch)
Outcomes
Application for a private hearing and anonymity allowed.
The Tribunal found a serious risk of harm to the Appellant's health, outweighing the principle of open justice. While commercial harm concerns were considered, the evidence wasn't strong enough to justify anonymity on that ground alone.