Dickinson & Ors v Revenue And Customs [2018] EWCA Civ 2798 (18 December 2018)

Dickinson & Ors v Revenue And Customs [2018] EWCA Civ 2798 (18 December 2018)

The Court held that while HMRC's prior postponement agreements gave rise to a legitimate expectation, the introduction of the APN regime by the Finance Act 2014 fundamentally altered the statutory context, providing HMRC with the power to override such agreements. The statutory purpose of removing the cash flow advantage in tax avoidance cases outweighed the force of the earlier promises. The discretion to issue APNs was exercised within the statutory framework and not so unfair as to amount to an abuse of power. The appeal was dismissed.

Citation
[2018] EWCA Civ 2798
Parties
Appellants: John Dickinson and Others; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 December 2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Appeal / Court of Appeal (civil Division) Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Legitimate Expectation, Abuse of Power, Accelerated Payment Notices, Tax Avoidance Schemes, Judicial Review, Statutory Discretion
Public Law Tax Law Administrative Law Legitimate Expectation Abuse of Power Accelerated Payment Notices Tax Avoidance Schemes Judicial Review +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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Dickinson and Others

Appellants

The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Appeal / Court of Appeal (civil Division) Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether HMRC's issuance of Accelerated Payment Notices (APNs) in contravention of prior postponement agreements constituted an unlawful abuse of power and breach of legitimate expectation.
  2. 2 Whether the statutory discretion to issue APNs under the Finance Act 2014 required consideration of antecedent postponement agreements and fairness to taxpayers.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that while HMRC's prior postponement agreements gave rise to a legitimate expectation, the introduction of the APN regime by the Finance Act 2014 fundamentally altered the statutory context, providing HMRC with the power to override such agreements. The statutory purpose of removing the cash flow advantage in tax avoidance cases outweighed the force of the earlier promises. The discretion to issue APNs was exercised within the statutory framework and not so unfair as to amount to an abuse of power. The appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed; the order of the High Court stands.
  • No order as to costs beyond existing costs orders.