Lonsdale Property Development Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC

Decision date: 20 November 2025

Neutral citation: [2025] UKFTT 1397 (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

Lonsdale Property Development Ltd appealed HMRC Notices of Requirement (NoRs) for VAT and CIS security issued after a history of late and missed payments; HMRC reviewed and reduced the sums but maintained that security remained necessary. The First-tier Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding HMRC's decision to require security was reasonable and necessary to protect the Revenue and that the review officer had properly considered payment of arrears. The Tribunal confirmed HMRC may return security earlier than the nominal 24 months if the assessed risk subsides.

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 applied a supervisory review standard: it assesses whether HMRC's decision to require security was reasonable and necessary rather than substituting its own discretion. A history of repeated late or missed payments can justify requiring security even if arrears are paid after a NoR is issued. Security sums may be calculated by reference to outstanding debts plus an element reflecting average months' liability (here treated as six months' VAT/CIS).

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 includes observations that company directors are expected to be aware of and involved in tax affairs and that a company's inability to afford demanded security is generally not a material consideration against requiring security (the latter being noted from authority cited).