Anthony Wong v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 3 June 2026
Neutral citation: [2026] UKFTT 822 (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
Mr Wong appealed a personal liability notice and sought costs of £5,500 under Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009 rule 10(1)(b) after HMRC notified it would not defend the appeal. The Tribunal rejected the application, holding that the conduct relied on by Mr Wong occurred before the appeal and so could not found a rule 10(1)(b) order, HMRC’s withdrawal 43 days after notification was not unreasonable, and parts of the claimed costs predated the appeal or related to the company rather than the appellant. No costs were awarded and quantum was not 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: high
The Tribunal treated the core ratio as that conduct relied on to justify a rule 10(1)(b) costs order must be conduct in the proceedings (i.e. after the Tribunal notified the respondent of the appeal); conduct predating notification cannot support such an order. The Tribunal also indicated that a respondent’s timely withdrawal within the timetable/directions period (here 43 days after notification) may not be unreasonable such as to attract a costs order, and that claimed costs which predate the appeal or relate to another party are not plainly costs "of and incidental to" the appeal.
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 commented obiter that even if HMRC’s withdrawal had followed representations from the appellant’s adviser, that would not necessarily render a 43‑day withdrawal timeframe unreasonable; and that deficiencies in a costs schedule do not automatically preclude an award but can affect the assessment of quantum.