Wincanton Holdings Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC

Decision date: 29 November 2021

Neutral citation: [2022] UKFTT 446 (TC)

Overall AI summary confidence: high

AI Notice: Any short overview, ratio decidendi summary or obiter dicta summary shown on this page is AI-generated, provided only to help users assess potential relevance more quickly, and may be wholly inaccurate. No liability is accepted for the accuracy of any such summary, regardless of any AI confidence rating shown. Users should check the underlying decision and obtain appropriate legal advice rather than relying on any summary.

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

Wincanton applied to the First-tier Tribunal for an unreasonable costs order under rule 10 after HMRC issued and later withdrew excise duty and VAT assessments relating to allegedly diverted goods. The Tribunal dismissed the costs application because Wincanton’s cost schedule failed to comply with rule 10(3)(b) and, in any event, there were no substantive proceedings before the Tribunal (hardship/payment conditions remained undecided) on which a costs award could properly be based. The Tribunal therefore did not decide whether HMRC had behaved unreasonably.

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 as recorded in the notes, a rule 10 costs application must include a schedule with sufficient particularity to permit the Tribunal to carry out a summary assessment under rule 10(3)(b); failure to provide such a schedule renders the application invalid. Separately, the Tribunal’s costs jurisdiction under rule 10 requires there to be proceedings before the Tribunal (not merely an appeal with unresolved hardship/payment preconditions), so absence of substantive proceedings precludes a costs award.

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 indicated (obiter) that, had the procedural requirements been met, it would concentrate on conduct in the proceedings (from the date of appeal) when assessing unreasonable behaviour, and that where costs are sought after withdrawal it would consider reasons for withdrawal, whether an earlier withdrawal was possible, and any unreasonable delay — matters that may require evidence from HMRC and the applicant.

Warning

Some repetition and formatting noise in the chunk; factual material is duplicated. Notes contain some repetition and formatting noise.

Source links

Judgment page Judgment PDF Judgment XML