Charles Kendall Freight Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 30 May 2024
Neutral citation: [2024] UKFTT 492 (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 interlocutory decision concerned an appeal against two C18 assessments which HMRC withdrew during proceedings. The Tribunal held that once the underlying decisions were withdrawn and thus lost all operative effect it ceased to have jurisdiction and struck the appeal out under Rule 8(2)(a), and it refused the appellant's costs application for want of justification and because no costs schedule had been provided.
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's ratio is that Rule 8(2)(a) requires striking out an appeal whenever the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction, including where an appealed decision loses all operative effect during the proceedings (here because HMRC withdrew the C18s). The Tribunal may nevertheless consider costs after disposal, but awarded none here because the appellant did not show unreasonable conduct by HMRC and failed to file the required costs schedule.
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 judge expressed that it is generally preferable for HMRC to withdraw from proceedings under Tribunal Rule 17 rather than merely withdrawing the underlying decision, to avoid disputes about jurisdiction, and disagreed with earlier authorities that treated Rule 8(2) as applying only at the commencement of proceedings.