Hardev Singh v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 6 January 2026
Neutral citation: [2026] UKFTT 46 (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 First-tier Tribunal considered a litigant-in-person’s summary assessment claim for costs against HMRC under Rule 10(1)(b) arising from two linked appeals. The tribunal found HMRC had acted unreasonably only by delaying obtaining Policy/Technical advice, which led to late withdrawal of its defence, but rejected the bulk of the appellant’s extensive, poorly-evidenced or disproportionate costs claim. The tribunal made a rough-and-ready summary award of £2,000 to the appellant and refused any uplift.
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 Rule 10(1)(b) costs as confined to unreasonable conduct in bringing, defending or conducting the proceedings; pre-commencement conduct is recoverable only in limited circumstances (for example, bad faith) or where such work is genuinely incidental to the eventual appeal. In a summary assessment the tribunal may make a proportionate, rough-and-ready award and may discount or exclude claims that are not evidenced, disproportionate, or not objectively incidental to the proceedings.
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 noted that a litigant-in-person’s subjective belief that all time spent relates to an appeal is not decisive and that tribunals may admit late material from litigants in person in the interests of fairness without thereby validating all claims contained in that material.