Athena Luxe Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC

Decision date: 22 May 2026

Neutral citation: [2026] UKFTT 775 (TC)

Overall AI summary confidence: medium

AI Notice: Any short overview, ratio decidendi summary or obiter dicta summary shown on this page is AI-generated, provided only to help users assess potential relevance more quickly, and may be wholly inaccurate. No liability is accepted for the accuracy of any such summary, regardless of any AI confidence rating shown. Users should check the underlying decision and obtain appropriate legal advice rather than relying on any summary.

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

Athena Luxe applied late for recovery of costs after a successful appeal against HMRC. The First-tier Tribunal admitted the out-of-time application, refused Athena’s claim for indemnity costs, and ordered HMRC to pay costs on the standard basis, summarily assessed at £9,500 with an itemised breakdown. The award must be paid within 28 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: medium

The Tribunal applied its case‑management powers to admit an out‑of‑time costs application where delay was significant but respondent did not object and the applicant gave reasons (including financial constraints); indemnity costs were refused because the high threshold of unreasonable conduct was not met; where appropriate in lower‑value disputes, a summary assessment on the standard basis is a proportionate way to quantify 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 suggests it can be procedurally unfair to decide an issue (such as entitlement to indemnity costs) raised only in reply when the other party had no realistic opportunity to address it, and notes that proportionality of costs should not be judged solely by reference to the quantum of VAT in dispute.

Warning

Chunk contains duplicative and poorly formatted passages; some paragraphs and citations are repetitive, making extraction of a single linear narrative more difficult. Notes are duplicative and poorly formatted; some passages repeat and the record may be incomplete.