R D Utilities Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 26 September 2022
Neutral citation: [2022] UKFTT 347 (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 FTT decision dealt with HMRC's request for disclosure beyond the standard Rule 27 regime and whether the appellant should provide further material from its witness, Anthony Dugdale. The Tribunal held that Rule 27 is the default disclosure regime and that any departure must be justified and proportionate under the overriding objective. It ordered a limited supplementary witness statement from Mr Dugdale addressing specified paragraphs of HMRC's request and required production of any non‑privileged documents within the appellant's control that fall within those limited points. The Tribunal refused HMRC's broader disclosure requests as disproportionate.
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 the principle that the FTT will normally follow Rule 27 as the default disclosure regime and will only order disclosure beyond it where the requesting party shows that such departure is appropriate and proportionate; where a witness statement raises new matters, the Tribunal may require a targeted supplementary witness statement on identified points rather than broad documentary disclosure.
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 (obiter) that disclosure is a means to narrow issues for hearing, the burden lies on the party seeking wider disclosure to justify it, and references in a witness statement to documentary evidence do not automatically entitle the other party to inspect all such documents—discretion remains with the Tribunal.