GC Field & Son Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 1 September 2022
Neutral citation: [2022] UKFTT 314 (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 concerned a costs application under FTT Rule 10(1)(b) after HMRC issued discovery assessments and alleged taxpayers (and their promoter) had been negligent. The Tribunal found HMRC did make a discovery but failed to prove negligence because it led no evidential material beyond pleadings and public announcements. The Tribunal held HMRC acted unreasonably in pursuing the negligence case without evidence, awarded costs to the appellants, but fixed quantum at a nominal £1.
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
The Tribunal treated as determinative that where a party bears the burden of proof (here HMRC on negligence), advancing and prosecuting a negligence case without adducing evidence to meet that burden can constitute unreasonable conduct for Rule 10(1)(b) costs purposes; absent an evidential basis, pursuing such a pleaded case may justify 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 judgment observed (by way of comment) that public announcements of legislative amendments, without factual particularisation and where schemes differ, may be insufficient by themselves to establish negligence. It also noted that representatives who are litigators but not legally qualified should be judged by the reasonable competence relevant to their role, while costs rules apply equally to public bodies.