Jeneruhl Trading Limited & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC

Jeneruhl Trading Limited & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC

HMRC’s pleaded case went beyond mere directorship and sufficiently alleged operational responsibility and attribution for officer liability under s69D VATA 1994, giving them a realistic prospect of success. The particulars and evidence provided by HMRC were adequate for the appellants to know the case they had to meet on the time limit issue, so further and better particulars were not required. However, targeted specific disclosure of progress logs and draft means of knowledge submissions was proportionate and necessary for a fair determination of the time limit issue.

Parties
First Appellant: Jeneruhl Trading Limited; Second Appellant: Vivek Nayar; Respondents: The Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 December 2024
Procedural Posture
Tax Appeal / Interlocutory Applications (debarment, Further and Better Particulars, Specific Disclosure) Prior to Preliminary Hearing on Time Limit Issue
Outcome
Applications determined: Debarring application refused; application for further and better particulars refused; application for specific disclosure allowed in part.
Legal Topics
Company Officer Liability Notice (cln), Section 69 C and 69 D VATA 1994, Debarring Applications, Case Management, Time Limits for VAT Assessments, Disclosure Obligations
Tax Law VAT Company Officer Liability Notice (cln) Section 69 C and 69 D VATA 1994 Debarring Applications Case Management Time Limits for VAT Assessments Disclosure Obligations

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jeneruhl Trading Limited

First Appellant

Vivek Nayar

Second Appellant

The Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Tax Appeal / Interlocutory Applications (debarment, Further and Better Particulars, Specific Disclosure) Prior to Preliminary Hearing on Time Limit Issue

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether HMRC should be debarred from proceedings on the basis of their pleaded case regarding officer liability under s69D VATA 1994
  2. 2 Whether HMRC must provide further and better particulars regarding the time limit issue for VAT assessments
  3. 3 Whether HMRC should be ordered to provide specific disclosure of documents relevant to the time limit issue

Ratio Decidendi

HMRC’s pleaded case went beyond mere directorship and sufficiently alleged operational responsibility and attribution for officer liability under s69D VATA 1994, giving them a realistic prospect of success. The particulars and evidence provided by HMRC were adequate for the appellants to know the case they had to meet on the time limit issue, so further and better particulars were not required. However, targeted specific disclosure of progress logs and draft means of knowledge submissions was proportionate and necessary for a fair determination of the time limit issue.

Court Disposition

Applications determined: Debarring application refused; application for further and better particulars refused; application for specific disclosure allowed in part.

Orders

  • Second appellant’s application to debar HMRC refused.
  • Appellants’ application for further and better particulars refused.