Jeremy Priestley v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 18 July 2025
Neutral citation: [2025] UKFTT 876 (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 concerned three interlocutory applications in appeals against HMRC final closure notices for 2007/08–2009/10: HMRC's request for further and better particulars (f and bp), the appellant's disclosure request, and HMRC's strike-out application. The tribunal held it has jurisdiction to hear appeals against the amendments and tax calculations stated in the final closure notices (but not against rolling self-assessment statements as such), granted HMRC's f and bp application requiring amended detailed grounds within 60 days, and dismissed the appellant's disclosure and HMRC's strike-out applications.
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
Appeals under section 31 TMA are appeals against the conclusions and amendments stated in a final closure notice and the tax calculations attached to it, not against a taxpayer's rolling self-assessment statement; where an appellant's pleadings ambiguously purport to challenge non-appealable material the tribunal should construe ambiguity in the appellant’s favour but may require sufficient particulars so the respondent can plead.
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 observed that strike-out is a draconian remedy and that, in interlocutory contexts, ambiguity in an appellant's position should generally be interpreted in the appellant's favour; it also noted the onus is normally on the appellant to plead the legal and factual basis of its challenge and that HMRC will usually only be required to justify computations at or before trial when necessary.