Upper Tribunal Upholds Fair Hearing Rights in Excise Duty Case Amid Procedural Delays

Citation: [2023] UKUT 285 (TCC)
Judgment on


In the matter of Andrew Howard Parnham & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC, the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) considered appeals and a cross-appeal arising from a First-tier Tribunal (FTT) decision relating to excise duty assessments on road hauliers for duty-suspended loads of spirits transported in 2006. The legal dialogue centered around affirmative fair hearing obligations, previous determinative judgments, and the implications of procedural delays on legal proceedings.

Key Facts

Andrew Howard Parnham and Mark Wild, the appellants, are road hauliers who faced joint and several liability assessments for excise duties based on alleged irregularities during transportation of loads to Belgium. Their appeals were previously stayed behind a main contractor’s (SDM) appeal, which went through protracted litigation for almost ten years. A critical aspect was whether the FTT erred in its initial refusal to indefinitely stay the proceedings or bar HMRC, based on the agreement that a fair trial was not possible due to extensive delays.

The case hinged upon several legal principles:

  1. Fair Trial and Procedural Delays: The concept of a fair trial is paramount in judicial proceedings. The parties contended that due to the passage of time, a fair trial on the factual issues (such as the delivery of spirits to the designated warehouse) had become impossible.

  2. Res Judicata and Abuse of Process: Res judicata prevents re-litigation of a matter that has already been resolved in court, aiming to preserve the finality of judgments. The FTT previously decided that findings in SDM’s appeal were not determinative for the appellants’ cases. The FTT considered whether HMRC was barred from participating based on a re-litigation argument that could amount to an abuse of process.

  3. Henderson v Henderson Abuse: This doctrine precludes raising matters in subsequent legal proceedings that were reasonably within the scope of the initial proceedings, ensuring litigation efficiency and finality.

  4. Issue Estoppel: This concept precludes parties from contesting a point in legal proceedings which has already been conclusively decided in prior proceedings involving the same parties.

  5. FTT’s Case Management Powers: The FTT’s rules allow it to manage cases effectively, which involves assessing whether a strike-out application is an abuse of process or whether the tribunal has the jurisdiction to stay proceedings indefinitely.

  6. Standard of Proof: The tribunal determined the standard of proof required in these circumstances, despite the appellants arguing that the burden should be akin to that of criminal proceedings due to the serious allegations.


The main decisions summarized are:

  • The Upper Tribunal rejected the appellants’ argument that the FTT erred in not indefinitely staying proceedings or barring HMRC, as the FTT was entitled to conclude that a fair hearing was possible despite the delays.
  • The FTT’s decision to refuse HMRC’s strike-out application was upheld, though the Tribunal’s rationale was clarified. The FTT should have rejected the application due to it amounting to a form of abuse of process, as it sought to challenge an issue that had been previously and finally determined.
  • The FTT power to stay proceedings indefinitely was discussed but not definitively concluded, as the FTT’s decision did not find a fair hearing impossible in light of the circumstances.


In Andrew Howard Parnham & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC, the Upper Tribunal scrutinized the FTT’s approach concerning case management, res judicata, and legal principles related to fair trials and procedural delays. Through a systematic analysis, the Tribunal illustrated how principles governing fair trial rights and litigation finality interact with case management prerogatives within the tax adjudication process.

The decision underscores the importance of final judgments, the criteria for re-litigation of settled issues, and the inherent authority of tribunals to address abuses of process effectively, all while navigating the conflicting rights to a fair hearing and finality in judicial matters. Although faced with extraordinary delays, both the Upper Tribunal and the FTT have delineated a need to push forward towards substantive hearings, balanced against the overarching pursuit of justice and procedural equity.

Related Summaries