Jonathan Kennaugh v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 19 October 2026
Neutral citation: [2026] UKFTT 1437 (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
The appellant, Mr Kennaugh, appealed a Simple Assessment of £5,831.22 but accepted its substance and instead complained about HMRC administrative errors, complaint handling, delay, and data-protection issues. The First-tier Tribunal held those complaints do not bear on the statutory correctness of the Simple Assessment and so are outside its jurisdiction, and struck the appeal out under Rule 8(2)(a) (alternatively as having no reasonable prospect of success under Rule 8(3)(c)). Permission to appeal was noted as available within 56 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
The Tribunal treated as the binding ratio that on an appeal against a Simple Assessment its statutory jurisdiction is confined to whether the assessed amount is correct under the taxing statutes; complaints that amount to challenges to HMRC’s conduct or administrative decision-making, which do not bear on the correctness of the assessment, fall outside that jurisdiction and may be struck out.
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 suggested (obiter) that remedies for complaints about HMRC’s conduct or the unfairness of enforcing a legally due tax liability ordinarily lie, if at all, by judicial review or other routes outside the tax appeals jurisdiction. It also noted that, for strike-out under Rule 8(3)(c), the Tribunal should assess whether an appeal has a realistic (not fanciful) prospect of success, taking account of available and reasonably expected evidence.
Warning
Chunk contains substantial repetition of the same material. Notes contain substantial repetition and are limited to a single chunk of the judgment; they may not capture all factual or legal nuances of the full decision.