Mediability Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 28 March 2023
Neutral citation: [2023] UKFTT 315 (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
Mediability Ltd appealed VAT assessments (1998–2002) contending supplies were made to Karacus Ltd (Gibraltar) and/or were re‑supplies, and asserting an abuse‑of‑rights defence. The tribunal struck out all four consolidated appeals under Rule 8(3)(c) as having no reasonable prospect of success, alternatively as an abuse of process, finding contemporaneous documents and prior findings (the Wilmslow Decision) showed the arrangements were designed to obtain a VAT advantage and undermined Mediability’s case. No fresh witness evidence was filed to counter adverse contemporaneous interview notes and documents.
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
Where contemporaneous documentary and interview evidence demonstrates a scheme was designed to secure a tax advantage and there is no credible fresh evidence to contradict that evidence, an appeal may be struck out under Rule 8(3)(c) for having no reasonable prospect of success; similarly, proceedings that amount to relitigation of issues already adjudicated may be struck out as an abuse of process.
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 contemporaneous admissions and documents generally carry greater weight than later self‑serving assertions, that it should avoid conducting a mini‑trial on strike‑out applications but may decide issues summarily where all necessary evidence is before it, and that isolating one element of an overall scheme (e.g. substituting an entity like Karacus) may not remove the abusive character if the scheme’s aim remains obtaining a tax advantage.