The Commissioners for HMRC v Michael Breen
Decision date: 24 November 2025
Neutral citation: [2025] UKFTT 1415 (TC)
Overall AI summary confidence: high
Short overview
This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.
AI confidence in this short overview: high
HMRC applied for costs against Mr Breen under Rule 10(1)(b) after his appeal was struck out for persistent non‑compliance with tribunal directions; the appeal concerned assessments of £942,131.68. The Tribunal found Mr Breen’s prolonged failures to comply were unreasonable, admitted but gave no weight to late medical imaging and refused an adjournment, and awarded HMRC the costs claimed.
Ratio decidendi
This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.
AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: high
The tribunal treated persistent and egregious failure to comply with rules and directions as satisfying the threshold of acting unreasonably under Rule 10(1)(b), permitting a costs award; it was unnecessary to identify a direct causal link between each cost item and specific misconduct because the tribunal may assess costs in light of the nature, gravity and effect of the conduct and the overriding objective.
Obiter dicta
This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.
AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium
The judgment indicated without making binding law that strike‑out is a distinct sanction and does not prevent a compensatory costs award under Rule 10; that contemporaneous evidence is required to show cognitive impairment relevant to past procedural conduct and that late‑produced imaging years later is unlikely to be probative; and that where a party opts to receive documents by post rather than email, late postal replies may not avert the automatic consequences of an unless order.