Dickinson & Ors, R (On the Application Of) v Revenue And Customs [2017] EWHC 1943 (Admin) (27 July 2017)

Dickinson & Ors, R (On the Application Of) v Revenue And Customs [2017] EWHC 1943 (Admin) (27 July 2017)

No order as to costs is made, despite the Revenue's success, because the Revenue lost on its main argument, ignored basic principles of good administration, and its conduct during proceedings fell below expected standards. Permission to appeal is refused at this level; application should be made to the Court of Appeal. Interim relief continues pending determination of any appeal.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 1943 (Admin)
Parties
Claimants: John Dickinson, Paul Mushrow, Edward Whitaker and Others (as listed in Appendix 1); Defendants: The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 July 2017
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Post Judgment; Applications for Permission to Appeal, Continuation of Interim Relief, and Costs
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused; interim relief continued; no order as to costs (each party to bear own costs, subject to existing orders).
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Accelerated Payment Notices (apns), Interim Relief, Costs Orders
Administrative Law Tax Law Judicial Review Accelerated Payment Notices (apns) Interim Relief Costs Orders

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Dickinson, Paul Mushrow, Edward Whitaker and Others (as listed in Appendix 1)

Claimants

The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Post Judgment; Applications for Permission to Appeal, Continuation of Interim Relief, and Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission to appeal should be granted
  2. 2 Whether interim relief should continue pending appeal
  3. 3 How costs should be allocated given the conduct of the parties

Ratio Decidendi

No order as to costs is made, despite the Revenue's success, because the Revenue lost on its main argument, ignored basic principles of good administration, and its conduct during proceedings fell below expected standards. Permission to appeal is refused at this level; application should be made to the Court of Appeal. Interim relief continues pending determination of any appeal.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused; interim relief continued; no order as to costs (each party to bear own costs, subject to existing orders).

Orders

  • Permission to appeal refused; application to be made to the Court of Appeal.
  • Continuation of paragraphs 2 to 7 of the order of 25 June 2015 until determination of any application for permission to appeal or, if granted, until determination of the appeal.