Gary Elden v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 8 January 2026
Neutral citation: [2026] UKFTT 41 (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 HMRC's application to strike out Mr Elden's appeal for repeated, unexplained non‑compliance with Tribunal directions and the production of inaccurate case summaries by the appellant's representative after using AI. The Tribunal found multiple breaches, concluded the AI‑derived summaries had not been properly verified and amounted to professional incompetence by any regulated person involved, but refused immediate strike‑out. Instead the Tribunal imposed strict "Will Unless" orders and detailed case‑management directions requiring verified witness statements, corrected skeleton argument material, and proof of bundle receipt on pain of automatic strike‑out.
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
From the judgment it can be identified that while repeated and unexplained non‑compliance with Tribunal directions may justify strike‑out under Rule 8(3)(b), strike‑out is a last resort; where a hearing date is not fixed and compliance remains possible, the Tribunal should consider proportionate case‑management remedies first. Additionally, representatives who use AI to prepare submissions must verify the accuracy of AI outputs, and failing to do so can amount to professional incompetence warranting tighter case‑management controls.
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 commented that AI can be a useful litigation tool but carries risks of "hallucination," and that lawyers bear responsibility to check AI outputs against authoritative sources; where inaccurate or misleading authorities are cited the Tribunal may require full judgments, quoted passages and statements of truth identifying contributors and their credentials. These observations were expressed as guidance rather than binding legal propositions.