Richard Donald Baines Isaac v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 21 August 2026
Neutral citation: [2026] UKFTT 1227 (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 for a costs order after the Appellant withdrew a late-appeal application shortly before the hearing, and alternatively a wasted costs order against the Appellant's representatives, Morr & Co. The Tribunal held HMRC had not proven the Appellant acted unreasonably in bringing or conducting the proceedings, nor that Morr & Co acted improperly, unreasonably or negligently, and therefore refused both the costs and wasted costs applications. The Tribunal accepted financial and personal pressures contributed to the withdrawal and found the prior decision (Northwood) did not make success impossible or render the present case materially indistinguishable.
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 party's late withdrawal does not by itself establish that proceedings were hopeless or that the party acted unreasonably for the purposes of rule 10(1)(b); reasonableness must be assessed against the facts as they existed at the time, and difference of view about the merits is not culpable where it is not shown the proceedings were obviously hopeless in light of relevant authorities.
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 (fact-specifically) that in other cases closely aligned with the Northwood decision continued pursuit might be unreasonable, and observed that litigation frequently involves refinement of issues as hearings approach so timing of amendments is relevant but not necessarily unreasonable.