Font v Commissioners for His Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2025] EWHC 3057 (Admin) (19 November 2025)

Font v Commissioners for His Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2025] EWHC 3057 (Admin) (19 November 2025)

The HMRC letter of 27 September 2024 was not amenable to judicial review as it was an intermediate step in the MAP process, did not determine the claimant's treaty residence, and had no substantive legal consequences for the claimant. The claim was not out of time, but even if it were, an extension would have been granted. The existence of alternative remedies and the lack of justiciability further supported refusal of permission.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 3057 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Jordi Carulla Font; Defendants: The Commissioners for His Majesty's Revenue and Customs
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 November 2025
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Permission Application With Preliminary Issues Determined on a Final Basis
Outcome
Permission for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Double Taxation Agreements, Judicial Review, Tax Residence, Mutual Agreement Procedure, Alternative Remedies, Justiciability
Tax Law Public Law International Law Double Taxation Agreements Judicial Review Tax Residence Mutual Agreement Procedure Alternative Remedies +1 more

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jordi Carulla Font

Claimant

The Commissioners for His Majesty's Revenue and Customs

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Permission Application With Preliminary Issues Determined on a Final Basis

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim is out of time under CPR 54.5(1)(b)
  2. 2 Whether HMRC's decision is amenable to judicial review
  3. 3 Whether the claimant has an alternative remedy

Ratio Decidendi

The HMRC letter of 27 September 2024 was not amenable to judicial review as it was an intermediate step in the MAP process, did not determine the claimant's treaty residence, and had no substantive legal consequences for the claimant. The claim was not out of time, but even if it were, an extension would have been granted. The existence of alternative remedies and the lack of justiciability further supported refusal of permission.

Court Disposition

Permission for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Claim dismissed; permission to apply for judicial review refused