Colin Sagar v The Commissioners for HMRC

Decision date: 27 August 2026

Neutral citation: [2026] UKFTT 1247 (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

This judgment concerns Mr Colin Sagar's applications for costs in two related Tribunal appeals after HMRC withdrew the contested decisions. The Tribunal found HMRC acted unreasonably in defending the Input Tax Appeal by failing to identify and evaluate documents it already held and awarded standard-basis costs to Mr Sagar (quantum reserved). The Tribunal did not find unreasonable conduct in the Penalties Appeal, dismissed that costs claim, and refused indemnity and wasted costs orders.

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: low

A public authority defending Tribunal proceedings must undertake a proper and rigorous review of its case on receipt of a Notice of Appeal; where it fails to identify and evaluate material already in its possession, that failure can amount to unreasonable conduct for the purposes of rule 10(1)(b) and justify an award of costs against it.

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 observes (non-bindingly) that requesting replacement copies of documents missing from a party's systems is not inherently unreasonable, but it is unreasonable to continue to defend proceedings on the basis that evidence was not supplied when it had in fact already been provided. It also notes that conduct before the commencement of appeal proceedings is distinct from conduct in defending or conducting Tribunal proceedings for the purposes of rule 10(1)(b).