Mypay Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 11 October 2022
Neutral citation: [2022] UKFTT 371 (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 concerns four case-management applications arising from an FTT Direction of 18 February 2022 that had permitted the appellant to amend its grounds of appeal to include ground (1): "Mypay does not employ the Workers". HMRC applied to set aside that part of the Direction and to strike out ground (1) on the basis that they had been materially misled by omission and ambushed by a fundamental change of stance; the Tribunal set aside Direction 1 insofar as it applied to ground (1) and ordered the appellant to make a formal permission application before relying on that ground. Preliminary strike-out applications were refused as premature and a timetable was directed for a permission process and further case management.
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
A tribunal direction permitting an amendment agreed by correspondence can be set aside where there has been a material omission or misstatement such that the opposing party and the Tribunal were misled about the scope of the amendment; where an amendment represents a fundamental change of stance not previously subjected to judicial scrutiny, it is appropriate to require a formal permission application and judicial consideration before the amendment can be relied upon.
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 indicates (non-bindingly) that parties should check agreed draft directions carefully because broadly worded agreement may not foreclose later objections if the amendment was in fact restricted or misleadingly presented; and that strike-out applications addressing substantial merits may be premature where the validity of an earlier direction to amend is still being contested.