Waterloo Car Hire (a partnership) v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 29 June 2023
Neutral citation: [2023] UKFTT 549 (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 concerns HMRC's application to strike out a 2020 Tribunal appeal by Waterloo Car Hire which sought to reopen 2015 closure notices and discovery assessments about whether second‑hand cars were trading stock or capital items. The Tribunal held the 2020 appeal re‑litigated the same subject‑matter and underlying right already finally decided in 2016, and that the partnership could and should have raised the capital allowance computations earlier. The 2020 appeal was struck out under Rule 8(2)(a) as barred by res judicata/cause of action estoppel and, alternatively, under Rule 8(3)(c) as an abuse of process. The usual right to apply for permission to appeal was preserved.
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
A tribunal that has finally decided an appeal against a specific assessment prevents the same party from re‑litigating that assessment in a later appeal; where the later appeal seeks the same relief or depends on the same essential factual allegations and the point could and should have been raised earlier, cause of action estoppel (res judicata) or strike out for abuse of process will bar the subsequent proceedings.
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 commented that prior statements by a superior tribunal suggesting parties might agree figures with HMRC do not amount to a licence to reopen matters before the First‑tier Tribunal where no new decision has been made. It also noted that the availability of material at the earlier hearing and lack of explanation for not using it weigh against permitting later re‑litigation.