Graham Chisnall & Ors v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 5 October 2023
Neutral citation: [2023] UKFTT 857 (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 case concerned three appeals about the market value of AIM‑listed Frenkel Topping and Vista shares gifted to charity in 2004–05 and an application to debar HMRC for delay. The Tribunal dismissed the debarment application, admitted but gave very limited weight to HMRC's internal expert evidence, and accepted AIM trading prices (as extrapolated by the appellants) as the market values on the relevant gift dates, making specific valuation findings for each appeal.
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 a Foulser Category 1 jurisdiction to remedy unfairness can extend to abusive conduct occurring before proceedings are commenced, but inordinate delay by itself will not normally suffice to debar a respondent unless there is demonstrable unfairness affecting the fairness of the proceedings. It also indicated that the evidential weight of an expert retained by a party may be substantially reduced where the party fails to explain why that expert's valuation should be preferred to earlier independent valuations and where the expert is an internal adviser whose employer has produced conflicting valuations.
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 (non‑bindingly) that AIM trading prices are generally admissible and potentially reliable evidence of market value even in thinly traded situations, with reliability depending on the evidence in each case. It also commented that unexplained departures from prior Tribunal‑based valuations or inconsistencies between related valuations undermine confidence in later internal valuations.