Waynefleet Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC

Decision date: 8 August 2023

Neutral citation: [2023] UKFTT 710 (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

Waynefleet applied under VATA s.84(3B) for permission to prosecute an appeal without paying or depositing disputed VAT of £170,344.78, claiming payment would cause hardship. The tribunal applied established hardship principles (Elbrook), found on the evidence at the hearing that the company had no immediately or readily available resources and that using available funds would itself cause hardship, and allowed the application so the substantive appeal may proceed without deposit. The decision records factual findings about bank balances, accounts and prior payments and gives standard appeal directions.

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: low

The tribunal applied the hardship enquiry as at the date of the hearing, requiring the appellant to show inability to pay the whole disputed sum without causing hardship; the focus is on immediately or readily available resources (including borrowings only if immediately accessible with minimal formality), and the burden of proof lies on the appellant.

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 decision observes (as guidance rather than binding ratio) that payments of funds to satisfy pre‑existing creditors may be relevant to whether a taxpayer has deliberately put itself in a position of incapacity, and that the mere existence of cash or realisable resources is not determinative if deploying them to pay would itself cause hardship.