Purple Pay Limited & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 24 April 2026
Neutral citation: [2026] UKFTT 625 (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
This case concerns HMRC's application to strike out three grounds in appeals against a Schedule 35 FA 2014 stop‑notice penalty and a subsequent joint and several liability notice. The Tribunal admitted the Company's late appeal but held it has no jurisdiction to entertain collateral challenges to the stop notice where statutory withdrawal/appeal procedures were not followed, and struck out three discrete grounds (ceased trading at time of notice; no promoter; no breach) as having no realistic prospect of success and an abuse of process. The parties were directed to agree further case‑management directions; rights to seek permission to appeal were recorded.
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 binding ratio identifiable from the notes is that the First‑tier Tribunal cannot be used to challenge the validity of a stop notice where the statutory withdrawal and appeal steps (section 236D/236E FA 2014 as referenced) were not followed; such collateral challenges fall outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction and may be struck out. Additionally, grounds that are “bad in law” with no realistic prospect of success can be struck out under the Tribunal’s case‑management powers (Rule 8(3)(c)) as an abuse of process.
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 noted obiter that it is arguable the penalty regime may engage Article 6 ECHR, but accepted authorities that Article 6 does not prevent strike‑out where case‑management powers properly apply. It also observed that distinctions between different kinds of JSLNs may affect which factual and legal issues arise and the relevance of prior authorities.