Telent Technology Services Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 9 December 2021
Neutral citation: [2022] UKFTT 147 (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
Telent (via TTSL) sought repayment of VAT including an "Overlap Period" of £855,754; HMRC conceded the substantive repayment claim for other periods but applied to strike out the Overlap Period claim. The Tribunal held HMRC could rely on VATA s85(1) and (4) to treat Telent's earlier withdrawal as deeming the original decision upheld (including reasons where relevant) and found the Overlap Period claim barred by cause of action estoppel (alternatively issue estoppel and abuse of process). The strike-out of the Overlap Period claim was allowed; the remainder of Telent’s claim was not struck out.
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 treated VATA s85(4) together with s85(1) as creating a legal consequence on withdrawal that the decision under appeal is deemed upheld without variation and the Tribunal is deemed to have determined the appeal accordingly; where the appeal concerned the reasons for an assessment, those reasons are included in that deemed determination. That deemed determination supported cause of action estoppel (and alternatively issue estoppel/abuse of process) to bar the later Overlap Period claim, including as between related companies managed centrally.
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 noted (obiter) that parties may change legal arguments subject to case management and fairness, and that estoppel by convention generally requires detriment and is less likely to apply merely to a party’s change of legal view; earlier authorities on related points were of limited assistance on the specific effect of s85(4) where withdrawal (rather than agreement) occurred.