Chris Poulton v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 20 February 2025
Neutral citation: [2025] UKFTT 240 (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
Mr Poulton appealed HMRC’s refusal to repay £9,959.84 VAT charged by a contractor for zero‑rated groundworks. HMRC applied to strike out the appeal arguing the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to entertain a post‑Brexit Reemtsma-type claim and that there was no reasonable prospect of success; the Tribunal refused to strike out. The Tribunal held it was premature to decide the effect of retained EU law/section 28 REULA on such claims and found Mr Poulton has a realistic prospect of arguing a conforming construction of VATA or preservation of Reemtsma-type relief; the appeal will proceed to a substantive hearing.
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 strike-out application should be refused where (as here) parties have not had adequate opportunity to address complex legal issues (notably the post‑Brexit effect of REULA/section 28) and the appellant has a realistic (not merely fanciful) prospect of success on those issues; similarly, where statutory wording raises a genuine question about availability of a remedy, a conforming construction may allow the claim to proceed rather than being dismissed at interlocutory stage.
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 commented (obiter) that counsel should have drawn REULA/section 28 to its attention and that this omission may be relevant to costs; it also noted that Reemtsma-type third‑party claims might, in principle, be pursued in ordinary civil courts in appropriate cases, but declined to decide the allocation of such claims between the Tribunal and civil courts.