Ashley Charles Trees v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 25 August 2023
Neutral citation: [2023] UKFTT 729 (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 interlocutory decision (refusing wider disclosure) concerns Mr Trees, sole director of CCA, who faced HMRC denial of input tax, a Director's Liability Notice and a civil evasion penalty. Mr Adamson applied for broader disclosure of any HMRC documents mentioning Mr Trees or CCA in relation to the fraudsters; the Tribunal held HMRC's existing disclosure compliant with standard disclosure/CPR requirements and refused the application as disproportionate. The Tribunal concluded Mr Trees had been served with all documents adverse to HMRC and would not be disadvantaged by the refusal.
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 held that a party meets its disclosure obligation by providing standard disclosure—documents it relies on and documents adverse to its case—and is not required to disclose every document that merely names a party where those documents do not meet the standard disclosure threshold. Reasonableness of search and disclosure is judged by proportionality factors (number of documents, complexity, ease/cost of retrieval, and significance), and those factors can justify not searching for or disclosing wide categories of anodyne or irrelevant documents.
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 decision observes that a party’s informal statement at a procedural hearing about undertaking a “more onerous disclosure obligation” does not automatically create an agreement to disclose every document mentioning a party; disclosure obligations remain those required by the CPR. It also notes that mere curiosity or desire to see documents is insufficient to compel disclosure where no litigious advantage would follow.