Coopervision Lens Care Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 23 April 2024
Neutral citation: [2024] UKFTT 351 (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
HMRC sought a specific disclosure order in an ongoing PAYE appeal relating to a 2014 share disposal, seeking four categories of communications and advice; the Tribunal refused the application. The Tribunal held HMRC had not shown the documents were reasonably required for a fair determination, the proposed searches were ambiguously drafted and disproportionate, and requests implicating legal advice raised privilege concerns. The application for disclosure was therefore refused and parties were told of appeal rights.
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 established case-law criteria for specific disclosure and found HMRC failed to satisfy them: applicants must show the documents are necessary for a fair trial, likely to exist and be in the party’s control, not previously disclosed, probably recoverable by reasonable search, and that disclosure is proportionate. Ambiguously worded orders (such as undefined searches limited to “databases”) and late, broadly scoped requests close to a fixed hearing date can render specific disclosure inappropriate.
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 noted as persuasive (but not forming a binding ratio) that the age of underlying transactions and limited value of long-past witness recollection do not alone justify intrusive disclosure beyond standard disclosure, and that late amendment of requests without explanation weighs against ordering burdensome searches.