Sylvia Hook (trading as Sylmis Puppies also known as Sylml Puppies) & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC

Decision date: 8 November 2023

Neutral citation: [2023] UKFTT 960 (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

The appellants applied for costs after a November 2022 hearing was adjourned because HMRC omitted documents from revised bundles. The Tribunal found the omissions were a genuine accidental error and did not amount to unreasonable conduct, and also refused the costs application because the appellants failed to provide the detailed costs schedule required by Rule 10(3)(b). The application was therefore refused; only a minor train fare claim would have been possibly recoverable had HMRC been unreasonable.

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

An accidental omission of documents from hearing bundles, without more, does not automatically constitute unreasonable conduct justifying a costs order; and a costs application under Rule 10 must be supported by a sufficiently detailed schedule (hours, rates, fee-earners and breakdown) to permit summary assessment.

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 that where a costs schedule is absent or inadequate it may require amendment, waive the breach, or make other appropriate orders, and that repeated warnings to provide a schedule may make requiring amendment unproductive. It also suggested that the level of particularisation for a costs schedule should generally follow the detail envisaged by PD 44.9.5/Form N260 to allow a rough but swift summary assessment.

Source links

Judgment page Judgment PDF Judgment XML