Barklem v Commissioners for His Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2024] EWHC 651 (Ch) (22 March 2024)

Barklem v Commissioners for His Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2024] EWHC 651 (Ch) (22 March 2024)

The claim was struck out as an abuse of process because challenges to s.28B(4) notices must be brought by judicial review, not by Part 7 claim, and in any event, the s.54 Agreement upheld the closure notices without variation, requiring HMRC to amend the Claimant's tax returns under s.28B(4) TMA; the argument that there was no partnership did not invalidate the notices or HMRC's power to amend the returns.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 651 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Nigel Barklem; Defendants: The Commissioners for His Majesty's Revenue and Customs
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 March 2024
Procedural Posture
Part 7 Claim for Declaratory Relief / High Court Judgment on Strike Out and Summary Judgment Applications
Outcome
Claim struck out and dismissed; summary judgment for HMRC
Legal Topics
Partnership Tax Schemes, Closure Notices, Judicial Review Vs. Part 7 Claims, Abuse of Process, Validity of HMRC Notices, Issue Estoppel
Tax Law Civil Procedure Administrative Law Partnership Tax Schemes Closure Notices Judicial Review Vs. Part 7 Claims Abuse of Process Validity of HMRC Notices +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 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nigel Barklem

Claimant

The Commissioners for His Majesty's Revenue and Customs

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Part 7 Claim for Declaratory Relief / High Court Judgment on Strike Out and Summary Judgment Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether HMRC's s.28B(4) notices amending the Claimant's tax returns were invalid because Film 2K was not a partnership
  2. 2 Whether the claim should have been brought by judicial review rather than a Part 7 claim
  3. 3 Whether the s.54 Agreement precluded HMRC from issuing s.28B(4) notices

Ratio Decidendi

The claim was struck out as an abuse of process because challenges to s.28B(4) notices must be brought by judicial review, not by Part 7 claim, and in any event, the s.54 Agreement upheld the closure notices without variation, requiring HMRC to amend the Claimant's tax returns under s.28B(4) TMA; the argument that there was no partnership did not invalidate the notices or HMRC's power to amend the returns.

Court Disposition

Claim struck out and dismissed; summary judgment for HMRC

Orders

  • Claimant's claim struck out as abuse of process
  • Claimant's application for summary judgment dismissed