L v The Commissioners for HMRC
[2024] UKFTT 401 (TC)
The Commissioners for HMRC v The Taxpayer
11 January 2024
[2024] UKUT 12 (TCC)
Upper Tribunal
A tax case went to court over whether some early parts of the case should be private. The lower court said 'yes' to keep a later request for privacy from being useless. The higher court said 'no,' because that wasn't a good enough reason to ignore the usual rule of open court hearings. They emphasized the need for good reasons and a balanced approach before making hearings private.
Key Facts
- •HMRC appealed a First-tier Tribunal (FTT) direction that preliminary proceedings in a tax appeal be heard in private.
- •The FTT's rationale was to prevent the taxpayer's outstanding anonymity application from becoming futile.
- •The Upper Tribunal (UT) considered whether the FTT's direction was justified under Rule 32(2)(e) of the FTT Rules.
- •The appeal concerned a case management decision, subject to a high threshold for appellate intervention (BPP Holdings v HMRC).
Legal Principles
Open justice is a fundamental principle of UK constitutional law, with hearings generally held in public (Article 6 ECHR, Rule 32(1) FTT Rules).
A v British Broadcasting Corporation (Scotland); Scott v Scott; HMRC v Banerjee; Moyles v HMRC
The FTT can order private hearings if restricting access is justified to avoid prejudice to the interests of justice (Rule 32(2)(e) FTT Rules).
Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009
Appellate courts should not interfere with case management decisions unless the decision is plainly wrong or outside the judge's discretion (BPP Holdings v HMRC).
BPP Holdings v HMRC
Outcomes
The UT allowed HMRC's appeal and set aside the FTT's direction for private preliminary proceedings.
The FTT erred in law by concluding that not holding preliminary proceedings in private would render the taxpayer's anonymity application for the substantive hearing futile. The UT found the FTT failed to consider whether the direction was proportionate and didn't adequately address the impact on the open justice principle.