Peter Woodstock Harris v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 2 December 2022
Neutral citation: [2022] UKFTT 447 (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 concerned Mr Peter Woodstock Harris’s application for costs after HMRC issued a partial closure notice which was later withdrawn and the appeal allowed. HMRC sought to strike out the costs claim as the supporting schedule was deficient for summary assessment. The Tribunal refused strike-out, found the schedule inadequate for summary assessment but, exercising its Rule 7 discretion, awarded costs on the standard basis and directed detailed assessment if parties could not agree; indemnity costs were refused.
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: medium
The Tribunal held that procedural deficiencies in a schedule of costs do not automatically deprive it of jurisdiction or require strike-out: Rule 7 empowers the Tribunal to remedy formal non-compliance and, where summary assessment is impractical because the schedule lacks requisite particularity, the Tribunal may nevertheless award costs on the standard basis and order detailed assessment rather than strike out the claim or award indemnity costs.
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 expressed that guidance from higher courts and the CPR about the level of particularisation in costs schedules (naming fee-earners, rates, time breakdown, disbursements) is persuasive for FTT practice; summary assessment is a "rough-and-ready" exercise usually suitable where a judge is familiar with the case, but very large or complex claims may make summary assessment unrealistic and favour detailed assessment. It also noted that capitulation by a defendant alone does not typically justify indemnity costs and that claimants with large or novel claims should consider seeking a waiver or proceeding directly to detailed assessment.