Paul Judd v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 3 January 2024
Neutral citation: [2024] UKFTT 51 (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 is a case management decision on Paul Judd's application to amend his grounds of appeal against a paragraph 19 notice apportioning a company penalty to him. The Tribunal refused to allow an amendment advancing a "no inaccuracy" ground because the company's earlier litigation — in which Judd was heavily involved and was the sole witness — necessarily implied inaccuracies in the company's VAT returns and would make re‑litigation an abuse of process. The Tribunal allowed amended grounds to proceed on issues of whether any inaccuracy was deliberate or attributable to Judd, and directed HMRC to serve a statement of case within 60 days.
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
Where a person is sufficiently identified with a party to earlier litigation (for example by funding, directing, and being the principal witness for that party), it can be fair and just to treat that person as bound by the earlier determination and to refuse later attempts to re‑open issues already decided; an amendment seeking to relitigate such issues may therefore be struck out as an abuse of process.
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 gave limited weight to hindsight evidence said to be "new" to justify reopening decided issues, noting such evidence runs counter to finality; it also observed that HMRC bears the burden of proof for the validity of a paragraph 19 notice and that the FTT had not determined deliberateness or attribution, leaving those issues open for this appeal.