Metropolitan International Schools Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 10 April 2024
Neutral citation: [2024] UKFTT 320 (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 appeal concerned whether HMRC should have been ordered to pay costs for failing to disclose the objective reasons for issuing Schedule 36 information notices and for the content of a case officer’s witness statement; the Tribunal concluded HMRC owed no duty to disclose those objective reasons to the taxpayer (that duty is to the Tribunal) and that HMRC’s conduct did not justify a costs award. The earlier costs award in favour of Metropolitan International Schools was set aside and no further order as to costs was made; outstanding documents were ordered to be provided to HMRC by 1 May 2024.
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
The Tribunal treated as the ratio that a party issuing Schedule 36 information notices is not obliged to disclose to the opposing party the objective grounds for issuing those notices — the obligation to show objective reasons is owed to the Tribunal, not to the taxpayer — and that including background material in a case officer’s witness statement, or omitting explanatory material to the other party, is not in itself unreasonable conduct justifying a costs order.
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 (obiter) on procedural expectations: late objections and very short notice applications (for example seeking a witness summons eight days before the hearing) are relevant when assessing reasonableness of conduct, and assessments under Rule 10(1)(b) require evaluative judgments of the circumstances, echoing principles from MORI/Distinctive Care.