Brijesh Patel v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 13 February 2023
Neutral citation: [2023] UKFTT 128 (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 Mr Patel's application for costs after HMRC withdrew two excise duty assessments and his appeal was allowed. The Tribunal held he was entitled in principle to reasonable costs on the standard basis but disallowed or reduced items it found unreasonable and required further particularisation of his claimed schedule. The Tribunal directed Mr Patel to file a compliant, detailed costs schedule before quantum is finally assessed.
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, the Tribunal applied its discretion to award costs incurred before formal hardship determination and before allocation to the complex track because an appeal is "started" when the notice of appeal is filed; and it held that a costs schedule under FTT Rule 10(3)(b) must contain particularisation comparable to CPR/Form N260 (identifying fee-earners by name/grade/experience, a breakdown of time, adequate task descriptions, and disbursements/VAT treatment) to permit summary assessment.
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 observed that where a respondent indicates it will not contest hardship, it may be more efficient to determine hardship on the papers to avoid unnecessary oral hearings and associated costs, and that the Tribunal will consider the retrospective effect of awarding costs for periods before allocation when exercising its discretion.
Warning
The chunk contains substantial repetition and some formatting/noise which made extraction of discrete points more difficult; readers should consult the full decision for precise paragraph references. somewhat noisy/incomplete — the notes contain repetition and formatting noise; consult the full decision for precise details.