Surestone Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

Decision date: 8 December 2009

Neutral citation: [2009] UKFTT 352 (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

Surestone Ltd brought four transitional VAT appeals that began before 1 April 2009; three were withdrawn in July 2009 and HMRC sought costs. The Tribunal held it has power to make costs orders in those transitional appeals by applying the pre‑1 April 2009 (1986) VAT Tribunal Rules under paragraph 7(3)(a) of Schedule 3 to the TTF Order, but any order is limited by paragraph 7(7) so it may only be made to the extent it could have been made before 1 April 2009. The Tribunal found HMRC’s July 2009 application timely under the 1986 Rules and reserved substantive entitlement and quantum for a later hearing.

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

For proceedings commenced before 1 April 2009 the Tribunal may apply the pre‑commencement procedural rules (the 1986 VAT Tribunal Rules) under paragraph 7(3)(a) of Schedule 3 to the TTF Order to make costs orders, subject to paragraph 7(7) which limits any such order to what could have been made before 1 April 2009.

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 Tribunal observed (obiter) that a costs award can take the form of a direction intended to ensure proceedings are dealt with fairly and justly (for example to prevent a successful party suffering financial loss). It also noted that certain 2009 Rules provisions (such as rule 23 allocation and opt‑out procedures) do not apply to "current proceedings" begun before 1 April 2009.

Source links

Judgment page Judgment PDF Judgment XML