CIS-Pay Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 19 May 2025
Neutral citation: [2025] UKFTT 751 (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
CIS-Pay sought wide disclosure from HMRC in concurrent appeals: an input tax denial (Kittel Appeal) and a s69C penalty (Penalty Appeal). The Tribunal held that Article 6 ECHR protections apply to the Penalty Appeal and cannot be curtailed simply because related tax issues without Article 6 protection are being heard concurrently, and therefore granted CIS-Pay's disclosure application in principle. The Tribunal left the precise form and timing of disclosure to agreement between the parties (or further direction), subject to modifications to avoid disclosing material already available to CIS-Pay and to preserve proportionality.
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: medium
Where an appeal against a penalty constitutes a criminal charge engaging Article 6, tribunal-ordered disclosure can extend beyond the usual Rule 27 disclosure obligations if such wider disclosure is necessary to secure a fair trial; concurrent non-Article 6 tax proceedings do not automatically reduce the Article 6 procedural protections applicable to the criminal-charge component.
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 practical burdens of wider disclosure (time, cost and Tribunal resources) are relevant considerations but require evidence to outweigh Article 6 fairness concerns; it also suggested disclosure might be staged (for example after witness statements) to reduce disproportionate burden and avoid duplicative disclosure of material already in the appellant's possession.