VP Evans (as executrix of HB Evans, deceased) & Ors v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 22 August 2025
Neutral citation: [2025] UKFTT 1112 (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
This interlocutory Tribunal decision concerns appellants' consolidated disclosure application in eleven appeals against HMRC Closure Notices raising CGT issues from offshore trust planning and related preliminary issues. The Tribunal ordered HMRC to undertake a further reasonable search and to disclose specified documents in Categories 1–4 (with limits) by 30 October 2025, but refused disclosure of internal/state-to-state material (Category 5) as not sufficiently relevant and confidential. Directions other than disclosure were stayed pending completion of that disclosure; HMRC must explain any documents no longer held. Permission to apply for appeal is preserved.
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 a public authority’s initial disclosure search gives rise to realistic concerns about adequacy, the Tribunal may order a further reasonable search and require disclosure of responsive documents even if the disclosing party does not intend to rely on them; conversely, internal or state-to-state communications may be withheld if their relevance is speculative and confidentiality and low probative value justify refusal.
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 indicated that broad category disclosure requests are not automatically disproportionate and that a tailored, middle-course case-management approach can be appropriate. It also noted that assertions in submissions about missing files (for example, having been moved between offices) do not suffice to explain absence—factual evidence is required.