Easyway Umbrella Limited, R (on the application of) v HMRC

Permission for judicial review granted on the first ground (failure to provide an opportunity to make representations).

Triable issue exists regarding whether Easyway received the April 13th letter. While the common law duty of fairness doesn't operate independently of the statutory right, the evidence of non-receipt is arguable.

Permission for judicial review refused on the second ground (inadequate reasons).

HMRC provided sufficient reasoning in the initial letter, and no further reasons were required after non-receipt of representations.

Permission for judicial review refused on the third ground (irrational decision).

The bar for suspicion under section 86 is low, and HMRC had sufficient grounds to suspect a tax avoidance scheme.

Permission for judicial review refused on the fourth ground (A1P1 violation).

Easyway's business activities and future opportunities do not constitute 'possessions' protected under A1P1. Furthermore, the section 86 regime itself is proportionate.

Permission for judicial review refused on all grounds due to section 31(3D) of the Senior Courts Act 1981.

Even if Easyway had received the April 13th letter and made representations, it's highly likely HMRC would have still published the notice due to the deferral of tax inherent in Easyway's business model.

Application for interim relief dismissed.

Permission for judicial review having been refused, the application for interim relief is moot. Even if permission had been granted, interim relief would likely have been refused due to the low bar for suspicion, the public interest in preventing tax avoidance, and Easyway's delay in responding.