Colin Sagar v The Commissioners for HMRC

Decision date: 13 March 2026

Neutral citation: [2026] UKFTT 396 (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 HMRC's application for costs after the First-tier Tribunal struck out Mr Colin Sagar’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The Tribunal found limited instances of unreasonable conduct by Mr Sagar (insisting on an oral hearing after HMRC’s September 2025 clarification and some uncooperative conduct in April 2025) but held that the conduct's impact was minor and refused HMRC’s costs application. HMRC was found not to have acted unreasonably in defending the proceedings. The judge commented (obiter) on the status and hourly rates of HMRC litigators but made no costs order.

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 judgment indicates that whether a party “acted unreasonably” under Rule 10(1)(b) is an objective, fact-sensitive value judgment assessed by reference to the party’s conduct at the time and the party’s abilities/experience; and that, even where unreasonable conduct is found, awarding costs is discretionary requiring balancing the nature, gravity and effect of the conduct.

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 judge observed (obiter) that HMRC litigators derive authority from the Solicitor for HMRC and, regardless of formal legal qualification, may be treated for costs assessment purposes in line with existing authorities; the judge also indicated he would have accepted the hourly rates claimed by HMRC litigators had a costs award been made.

Source links

Judgment page Judgment PDF Judgment XML