Worldpay (UK) Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC

Decision date: 1 October 2021

Neutral citation: [2022] UKFTT 162 (TC)

Overall AI summary confidence: high

AI Notice: Any short overview, ratio decidendi summary or obiter dicta summary shown on this page is AI-generated, provided only to help users assess potential relevance more quickly, and may be wholly inaccurate. No liability is accepted for the accuracy of any such summary, regardless of any AI confidence rating shown. Users should check the underlying decision and obtain appropriate legal advice rather than relying on any summary.

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

Worldpay sought indemnity costs from HMRC after HMRC amended its pleading late (to rely on Halifax abuse) and then withdrew the case shortly before the re-listed hearing. The Tribunal refused indemnity costs, finding HMRC’s conduct fell within the range of acceptable conduct, but ordered HMRC to pay Worldpay’s costs of the appeals on the standard basis and to pay £250,000 on account within 14 days. The Tribunal also ordered Worldpay to pay HMRC’s costs of the indemnity-application on the standard basis.

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

An order for indemnity costs requires conduct that is unreasonable to a high degree and outside the norm for that litigation; mere weakness in a legal argument or a late amendment prompted by disclosure is not, by itself, sufficient to justify indemnity costs. Where parties cannot agree, assessment of standard-basis costs should be by a High Court Costs Judge and payments on account may be ordered pending assessment.

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: high

The Tribunal observed that last-minute capitulation before trial is an aggravating factor favouring indemnity costs but should be given limited weight by itself. It also noted that allegations of serious dishonesty could attract indemnity costs if advanced opportunistically, without foundation, or pursued in a constantly changing manner; that threshold was not reached on these facts.