WG Recruitment Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC

Decision date: 8 April 2025

Neutral citation: [2025] UKFTT 420 (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

WG Recruitment appealed four default VAT surcharges for specified periods, disputing that HMRC's surcharge liability notices (SLNs) had been served. The Tribunal found HMRC had not adduced sufficient evidence of service, refused HMRC's adjournment request for further proof, set aside the SLNs and allowed the appeal. The decision notice was prepared at the appellant's request and parties may apply for permission to appeal within 56 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: high

The Tribunal held that liability to default surcharges depends on proof that the relevant SLN was served; where HMRC produces only its internal system records or unsupported assertions that a notice was sent, and the recipient disputes receipt, those records are weak and insufficient to establish service and the Tribunal must set aside the surcharge(s).

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 Tribunals should require at least minimal corroborative evidence of service rather than accepting unsupported assertions from representatives or reliance solely on outsourced dispatch processes, and that HMRC's use of outsourced mailing does not remove its obligation to produce evidence of service when receipt is contested.