Dickinson & Ors v Revenue And Customs

Dickinson & Ors v Revenue And Customs

The Court of Appeal held that while HMRC's failure to consider the existence of prior postponement agreements when issuing APNs was unfair, the legislative policy underlying the Finance Act 2014, which was intended to remove the cash flow advantage in tax avoidance cases and to apply to existing postponement agreements, outweighed the unfairness. Therefore, the issuance of APNs did not amount to an abuse of power or unlawful frustration of legitimate expectation.

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 From High Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal on costs dismissed
Legal Topics
Legitimate Expectation, Abuse of Power, Judicial Review, Tax Avoidance, Accelerated Payment Notices
Public Law Tax Law Legitimate Expectation Abuse of Power Judicial Review Tax Avoidance Accelerated Payment Notices

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 14 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 From High Court to Court of Appeal

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
  2. 2 Whether the existence of clear postponement agreements gave rise to a substantive legitimate expectation that HMRC could not lawfully frustrate by issuing APNs under the Finance Act 2014
  3. 3 Whether the judge erred in balancing the factors for and against the claimants and in concluding that the legislative policy outweighed the unfairness

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that while HMRC's failure to consider the existence of prior postponement agreements when issuing APNs was unfair, the legislative policy underlying the Finance Act 2014, which was intended to remove the cash flow advantage in tax avoidance cases and to apply to existing postponement agreements, outweighed the unfairness. Therefore, the issuance of APNs did not amount to an abuse of power or unlawful frustration of legitimate expectation.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal on costs dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal by the claimants is dismissed.
  • The cross-appeal by HMRC on costs is dismissed.