David Oakes v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 24 November 2022
Neutral citation: [2022] UKFTT 428 (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 appeal concerned a costs application by Mr Oakes under TCEA and Rule 10 after HMRC applied to admit late evidence (an email exchange) following oral testimony at a permission-to-appeal hearing. The tribunal found HMRC had a reasonable explanation for seeking to admit the late evidence, that the evidence was largely irrelevant to the permission-to-appeal decision, dismissed HMRC's late-evidence application, and refused Mr Oakes's costs claim of £1,698.60.
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 tribunal held that seeking to admit late evidence is not per se unreasonable if there is a reasonable explanation—such as responding to an unanticipated assertion made at oral evidence—and that conduct which can reasonably be explained does not satisfy the threshold for an adverse costs order under Rule 10(1)(b). Thus, reasonableness of the applicant’s conduct, judged in context, is decisive when considering a costs order for unreasonable behaviour.
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 that the discretion to admit late evidence can be approached analogously to the Denton three-stage test for permission to extend time (establish delay, provide explanation, and overall evaluation), and noted there is no automatic bar to seeking to admit evidence after the close of evidence; timing is a relevant discretionary factor in costs decisions.