Sentinel Fire and Security Systems Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC

Decision date: 26 June 2023

Neutral citation: [2023] UKFTT 550 (TC)

Overall AI summary confidence: high

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: high

Sentinel claimed Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme payments for an employee (Mr Boddice) but HMRC assessed repayment of £17,777.81 because the employer's RTI submission including his earnings was received by HMRC on 25 March 2020, after the relevant CJRS cut‑off. The First‑tier Tribunal found the RTI cut‑off was not met, upheld HMRC's assessment as valid and correctly quantified, and dismissed the appeal. The tribunal held it could not refuse clawback on grounds of fairness or the Scheme's "spirit."

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

A claimant under the CJRS must have included an employee's earnings in an RTI PAYE submission to HMRC on or before the prescribed relevant CJRS day (either 28 February 2020 or 19 March 2020) to qualify; where that statutory bright‑line requirement is not met, a tribunal may not set it aside or decline repayment on fairness grounds.

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 expressed sympathy for claimants who miss formal requirements but indicated such sympathy does not permit departure from clear statutory eligibility criteria; it also noted that the timing of publication of the First Direction after the lockdown announcement does not excuse non‑compliance with the statutory cut‑off where the claim was made after publication.

Warning

- Chunk contains repeated and duplicated passages; care taken to avoid inventing or adding facts.

Source links

Judgment page Judgment PDF Judgment XML