John Crooks v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 30 September 2025
Neutral citation: [2025] UKFTT 1148 (TC)
Overall AI summary confidence: medium
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: medium
The appellant sought an order requiring HMRC to disclose particulars and documents about alleged discounted 2015 EBT settlements offered to large companies, arguing comparators should have been offered to users of a Self‑Employed Remuneration Trust. The Tribunal refused the 8 July 2025 application as the requested third‑party settlement information was not sufficiently relevant or proportionate to the issues before it, the application was premature while HMRC had not filed a statement of case, and the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to direct or review HMRC's settlement terms to third parties. The refusal preserved the parties' ability to pursue ADR and recorded the appellant's right to seek 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: high
Where an applicant seeks disclosure or further and better particulars, the Tribunal must test the request against relevance and proportionality in relation to matters within its jurisdiction; such requests should generally await a sufficiently particularised statement of case so the Tribunal can assess necessity and proportionality. The Tribunal will not order disclosure aimed at comparing or challenging settlement terms offered to third parties where those terms are not directly relevant to determining the correctness of the contested tax decisions.
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 indicates (obiter) that disclosure is not an appropriate mechanism for pursuing broader policy or fairness challenges to HMRC settlement practice, and that encouragement of ADR alone does not justify ordering wide disclosure of third‑party settlement terms.