Constantinos Kyriaides v The Commissioners for HMRC

Decision date: 10 November 2025

Neutral citation: [2025] UKFTT 1334 (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

This appeal concerned whether proceedings challenging HMRC assessments and penalties for deductions claimed via a "Self-Employed Remuneration Trust" for 2017/18–2021/22 should be stayed pending (1) the Further Independent Review (FIR) of the Loan Charge and (2) the final determination in Marlborough. The Tribunal granted a short, proportionate stay pending the FIR because the review was likely to materially affect resolution and the delay was limited, but refused a stay pending Marlborough as that decision was not likely to be of material assistance. Directions were given for possible amendment of grounds and case progression; the Appellant may 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: high

A stay of proceedings is appropriate where an independent review or pending determination is likely to materially affect the resolution of the appeal and the resulting delay is short and proportionate; merely similar issues in another case do not suffice to justify a stay—the other decision must be likely to materially assist the first-instance hearing.

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 reiterated that the burden lies on the applicant to justify a stay and that uncertainty from an ongoing review does not, without a demonstrated material connection to the appeal’s issues, justify delaying proceedings.