Ian Osborne John Godden Valerie Patterson William Swales Stanley Mower Angela Simmons David Wadwell Robert Brumpton Michael Phillips Clifford Bonner Ian Hodkinson Michael Dobson John Skeldon v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs
Decision date: 17 September 2009
Neutral citation: [2009] UKFTT 241 (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
Thirteen joined appeals challenged HMRC refusals to refund voluntary Class 3 National Insurance contributions as not "paid in error" under regulation 52. The Tribunal held that "error" is limited to mistakes ascertainable at the time of payment and relating to past or present matters; applying that test it allowed two refunds (Brumpton and one Wadwell payment) and dismissed the other eleven appeals. The Tribunal rejected broader fairness, negligence or mis‑selling arguments outside the statutory test.
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: medium
The ratio is that regulation 52's concept of "error" is restrictive and must be a mistake capable of being known at the time of payment and concerning past or present facts; prospective or hindsight considerations do not satisfy the regulation. Whether contemporaneous information available to a payer defeats an error claim depends on the present facts at payment and the payer's reliance, but the statutory test is exhausted by this temporal/present‑fact limitation.
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 as obiter that HMRC's administrative policy to refund some payments made after publication but before enactment (where payers were unaware) is distinct from the statutory test and that complaints about legislative fairness lie with Parliament rather than the Tribunal; it emphasised the Tribunal's limited jurisdiction to grant relief only under the regulation.