Andrew Nuttall v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 21 February 2022
Neutral citation: [2022] UKFTT 192 (TC)
Overall AI summary confidence: medium
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: medium
Mr Nuttall applied to bar HMRC and have his appeal allowed for abuse of process, arguing HMRC's more than 12‑year delay in an aspect enquiry into his 2003–04 gift relief claim was inordinate and culpable. The Tribunal found the delay was inordinate and culpable but concluded it had not prejudiced the fairness of the hearing, and therefore refused the application for a procedural remedy. The Tribunal held it had jurisdiction to consider abuse of process only to the extent the alleged conduct affected the fairness of the hearing.
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 decision turns on the proposition that relief for abuse of process in the FTT is available where the alleged conduct (including pre‑litigation conduct) directly renders a fair hearing impossible or unfair; by contrast, inordinate and culpable investigatory delay alone does not entitle a party to relief unless prejudice to the fairness of the tribunal hearing is shown.
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 judgment contains observations that HMRC have a duty to secure and retain documents obtained during enquiries and that loss of such documents can be relevant to prejudice arguments; that complaints about how a public authority exercised investigatory/decision‑making powers may be a matter for judicial review rather than FTT remedies; and that the Tribunal would have allowed an amendment to the grounds of appeal had jurisdiction existed.