Rettig Heating Group UK Ltd, R (on the application of) v The Commissioners for HMRC

7 October 2024

[2024] UKUT 315 (TCC)

Upper Tribunal

A company sued the tax authority (HMRC) for refusing to let them claim a tax refund late. The company wanted to see HMRC's internal emails and notes to understand their decision better. The judge said the tax authority's official letter explaining their decision was good enough, and the company didn't need to see the extra documents.

Key Facts

•Rettig Heating Group UK Ltd (in liquidation) challenged HMRC's refusal to extend the time limit for a set-off claim under s460 Corporation Tax Act 2009.
•The claim related to overseas dividends and involved HMRC's interpretation of its Statement of Practice 5/01.
•The claimant sought disclosure of HMRC's internal discussions leading to the January 5, 2024 decision letter.
•HMRC argued the decision letter was a complete record of its decision and complied with its duty of candour.
•The claimant alleged inconsistencies between the decision letter and a witness statement from HMRC officer Sinead Murphy.
•The judicial review grounds challenged HMRC's interpretation of the Statement of Practice and alleged errors of law and failure to consider relevant factors.

Legal Principles

Disclosure in judicial review is necessary for a fair and just resolution.

Tweed v Northern Ireland Parades Commission [2007] (HL(NI)) 1 AC 650 at [3]

Public authorities have a high duty of candour to assist the court with full and accurate explanations.

Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs v Quark Fishing Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 1409 (at [50])

The duty of candour is an obligation of explanation, not just disclosure, encompassing the reasoning process underlying the decision.

R (oao IAB) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] EWHC 2930 (Admin)

In judicial review, the defendant should identify relevant facts and reasoning in their defence; disclosure is only ordered if the court deems it necessary.

CPR 54.16 on Evidence

The extent of the duty of candour is sensitive to the public law issues raised.

R (Refinitiv Ltd and others) v HMRC [2023] UKUT 187(TCC)

Outcomes

The claimant's application for disclosure was dismissed.

The Tribunal found that the decision letter adequately set out HMRC's reasoning and that the alleged inconsistencies did not warrant disclosure. The inconsistencies did not demonstrate that the letter was an incomplete record of the decision-making process, and the additional evidence was not necessary for a fair and just resolution of the issues raised.

Rettig Heating Group UK Ltd, R (on the application of) v The Commissioners for HMRC

Key Facts

Legal Principles

Outcomes

Similar Cases

Coopervision Lens Care Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC

Josephine Mary Hayes v The Commissioners for HMRC

Fluid Systems Technologies (Scotland) Ltd & Ors, R (on the application of) v The Commissioners for HMRC

Essex Trading Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC

Surat Singh Sangha v The Commissioners for HMRC