Hugh Edward Mark Osmond & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 20 May 2024
Neutral citation: [2024] UKFTT 413 (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 a third party's application for copies of the parties' written skeleton arguments and any supplemental written submissions from an appeal heard 11–14 March 2024. The Tribunal applied open justice principles and conducted a fact‑specific balancing exercise. It found the applicant had a legitimate interest and ordered disclosure of the parties' skeleton arguments (no supplemental submissions existed). The Tribunal preserved the parties' right to apply for permission to 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
Where an appeal has been heard and material is effectively in the public domain, it may be appropriate under the Tribunal’s rules and inherent jurisdiction to disclose parties’ written skeleton arguments to a third party to further open justice, subject to a fact‑specific balancing exercise considering the purpose of open justice, the informational value, potential harm to the judicial process or legitimate interests, and proportionality.
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 judgment suggests that entirely private or commercial interests can amount to a legitimate interest for third‑party disclosure (for example, advising clients in related matters). It also indicates that supplemental submissions containing sensitive facts could be redacted rather than withheld in whole.