Talbot Kwok v The Commissioners for HMRC

Decision date: 23 April 2026

Neutral citation: [2026] UKFTT 624 (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 the Appellant’s application for costs after HMRC withdrew five days before a listed one‑day hearing in a dispute over a £62,990.26 input VAT repayment. The Tribunal ordered HMRC to pay the Appellant’s costs of and incidental to the appeal, assessed on the standard basis, and declined to undertake a summary assessment; the costs are to be subject to detailed assessment if not agreed.

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 costs order under FTT Rules r.10(1)(b) may be made where the paying party withdraws shortly before a hearing, but the appropriate basis for costs (standard v indemnity) depends on whether the paying party’s conduct meets the higher threshold of unreasonable or improper behaviour required for indemnity costs. Where the claimed sum is large and the claimant’s schedule lacks sufficient particularisation to enable a tribunal to assess proportionality, the Tribunal should refuse summary assessment and instead order detailed assessment if the amount is disputed.

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 advancing an indemnity costs claim for the first time in reply may be procedurally unfair because the other party had no prior opportunity to address it, and that mere persistence in defending an appeal until shortly before hearing, even if unreasonably late, will not automatically satisfy the higher threshold for indemnity costs.