Clear Pay Payroll Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 30 July 2025
Neutral citation: [2025] UKFTT 916 (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
Clear Pay Payroll Ltd appealed HMRC’s VAT assessment and applied for the Tribunal to entertain the appeal without payment or deposit under VATA s84(3B). The Tribunal found it had jurisdiction to hear the hardship application, assessed hardship by reference to Clear Pay’s available resources at the hearing date, and concluded Clear Pay would suffer hardship. The Tribunal granted the application so the appeal will be entertained without payment or deposit; parties have 56 days to seek permission to appeal.
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 it has jurisdiction under VATA s84(3B) to hear an appellant’s application to entertain an appeal without payment/deposit even where HMRC state they are not “satisfied”; hardship is to be assessed as an all‑or‑nothing test by reference to an appellant’s immediately or readily available resources at the date of the hearing, and inability to pay the full disputed amount can establish hardship.
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 observed that it is not inherently inconsistent for HMRC to pursue winding‑up proceedings while opposing a hardship application because the legal tests differ, that detailed inquiry into HMRC’s internal decision‑making is generally unnecessary, and that HMRC’s failure to engage substantively can affect the weight of their opposition.