The Nigel Blackwell Family Trust & Ors v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 24 September 2026
Neutral citation: [2026] UKFTT 1361 (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 appeal concerns whether a Loan and Security Agreement (LSA) should be treated as a "security" for EIS deferral relief and whether the appellants could adduce expert evidence about marketability and hypothetical third‑party purchasers. The Tribunal refused permission for that expert evidence, holding the legal characterisation is an objective assessment of the debt's characteristics in its commercial context and that the proposed evidence was unnecessary, not reasonably required and disproportionate. The Tribunal also found no sufficiently defined issue of New York law requiring expert determination. Parties have 56 days to apply for 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's ratio is that expert evidence is only admissible where reasonably required to resolve the issues; mere potential assistance is insufficient. The statutory question whether a debt instrument is a "security" is principally answered by objectively characterising the instrument by reference to its features and commercial context, rather than by proving the existence of an actual secondary market or purchasers; permission to adduce expert evidence must also be proportionate in cost and burden.
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 (obiter) that expert evidence may be appropriate where market practice, industry standards or technical matters are themselves in issue; that it can draw inferences about marketability from contractual features and surrounding circumstances without expert input; and that refusing expert evidence does not bar factual submissions or challenge to opposing inferences by cross‑examination.