Berlin Trading Company Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 24 January 2025
Neutral citation: [2025] UKFTT 66 (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
Berlin Trading Company Ltd (BTC) sought costs from HMRC after HMRC withdrew an AWRS refusal following BTC's appeal to the First-tier Tribunal. BTC's costs application was five days late under FTT Rule 10(4)(b); the Tribunal refused permission to make a late application applying the three-stage Denton/Martland approach and, alternatively, found HMRC had not acted unreasonably so as to justify a costs award. The application for costs was therefore dismissed and no assessment of quantum was undertaken.
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 notification to the represented party (even if BTC's representative was not separately copied) as the valid start point for the 28‑day time limit in Rule 10(4)(b), and applied the three‑stage Denton/Martland test to refuse permission for a five‑day late costs application, holding that even short delays can be “serious or significant” depending on proportionality. It also held that prompt withdrawal of a decision after an internal review identifying a procedural defect does not amount to unreasonable conduct warranting costs.
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 indicated that failures by a litigant’s advisers (including counsel or clerks) will generally be treated as failures by the litigant when assessing reasons for delay. It also suggested that withdrawal following a reasonably prompt internal review is not necessarily conduct that justifies a costs award absent exceptional factors.