Madeleine Clark v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 9 April 2026
Neutral citation: [2026] UKFTT 559 (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 Ms Madeleine Clark's application for costs and for re-allocation of her Tribunal appeal to Complex (or Basic) after HMRC conceded a Regulation 185 adjustment and cancelled penalties that arose from conduct before the appeal. The Tribunal held the appeal should remain Standard, refused re-allocation, and dismissed the costs application because its rule 10(1)(b) costs jurisdiction applies only to unreasonable conduct occurring after the appeal was brought. The prior direction to produce a statement of case was retrospectively set aside as unnecessary.
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’s binding decision is that rule 10(1)(b) permits an award of costs only for unreasonable conduct “in bringing, defending or conducting the proceedings,” meaning conduct occurring from the existence of the appeal (the filing of the notice of appeal) onward; conduct predating the appeal cannot provide a basis for a costs award. Also, re-allocation to Complex requires satisfying the Practice Direction criteria (e.g. lengthy/complex evidence, important legal principle, or a sufficiently large financial sum), and the appeal did not meet those criteria.
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 a concession by HMRC about unreasonableness before the appeal does not suffice to found a costs award under rule 10(1)(b) because the relevant unreasonable conduct must postdate the notice of appeal. It also noted that the Practice Direction’s numerical thresholds for a “large” financial sum are a relevant guide when considering Complex allocation.