Governance Ministries v The Commissioners for HMRC

Decision date: 11 March 2026

Neutral citation: [2026] UKFTT 371 (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 case concerns an appeal by Governance Ministries against HMRC about recovery of input VAT in broadcasting (value about £6m). HMRC withdrew from the appeal very late—by email 14 minutes before a skeleton argument deadline and about two weeks before a nine‑day hearing—leading the tribunal to award the appellant its substantive costs on the indemnity basis. The tribunal also ordered an interim payment of £400,000 within 14 days and held that costs of the costs application would be paid by HMRC but assessed on the standard basis.

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 party’s very late withdrawal from proceedings shortly before trial, in the absence of an adequately particularised new decisive fact or explanation, can constitute conduct “out of the norm” that justifies ordering the opponent’s substantive costs on the indemnity basis.

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 wasting tribunal resources by late vacatur is an unsympathetic but not determinative factor in awarding indemnity costs, and that a party claiming a late evidential catalyst for withdrawal should identify the material with sufficient particularity because mere submissions are given little weight.