Bouncylagoon Limited and other Appellants in the VAT Umbrella Appeals v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 4 October 2022
Neutral citation: [2022] UKFTT 361 (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 case records a BBC journalist's application for electronic copies of parties' skeleton arguments and the hearing bundle from a public case-management hearing in the VAT Umbrella litigation. The Tribunal ordered disclosure of the parties' skeleton arguments but refused disclosure of the full 1,423‑page hearing bundle. The decision applied a fact‑sensitive balancing process (Dring approach) considering whether disclosure would materially advance open justice, risks to third parties or the process, and proportionality/practicality. The journalist may apply for permission to appeal under rule 39 within 56 days.
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 treated as a default that documents placed before and referred to in a public hearing are presumptively accessible to advance open justice, subject to a specific balancing exercise: (1) whether disclosure would materially further public understanding/scrutiny, (2) whether disclosure would pose real risks to the judicial process or legitimate interests of others, and (3) whether disclosure is practical and proportionate. Applying that test, skeleton arguments were disclosed but the extensive hearing bundle was not.
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 judgment indicates, as non‑binding guidance, that a media applicant need not do more than identify a journalistic purpose to justify access to documents referred to in a hearing, and that very extensive bundles containing material about persons or matters not the subject of the public hearing may weigh strongly against disclosure.