London Fluid System Technologies Ltd & Ors v His Majesty's Commissioners for Revenue and Customs

London Fluid System Technologies Ltd & Ors v His Majesty's Commissioners for Revenue and Customs

Although service was not valid under a strict reading of the Press Release and CPR, the ambiguity of the guidance, the reasonable steps taken by the claimants' solicitor, and HMRC's conduct justified retrospective validation of service under CPR 6.15. There was no estoppel by convention, but good reason existed to treat service as valid. The substantive claims are arguable and permission is granted.

Parties
Claimant: London Fluid System Technologies Ltd; Claimant: Mr Adrian Wynne; Claimant: Fluid Systems Technologies (Scotland) Limited; Claimant: Mr Peter O’Connor; Defendant: His Majesty’s Commissioners for Revenue and Customs
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Permission Application and Preliminary Service Issues
Outcome
Permission granted; service validated under CPR 6.15
Legal Topics
Service of Process, Judicial Review Procedure, Disguised Remuneration Repayment Scheme, Estoppel by Convention, Interpretation of Procedural Guidance
Civil Procedure Tax Law Administrative Law Service of Process Judicial Review Procedure Disguised Remuneration Repayment Scheme Estoppel by Convention Interpretation of Procedural Guidance

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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

London Fluid System Technologies Ltd

Claimant

Mr Adrian Wynne

Claimant

Fluid Systems Technologies (Scotland) Limited

Claimant

Mr Peter O’Connor

Claimant

His Majesty’s Commissioners for Revenue and Customs

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Permission Application and Preliminary Service Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether service of claim forms on HMRC was valid under CPR and the Press Release guidance
  2. 2 Whether the court should exercise its discretion under CPR 6.15 to validate service
  3. 3 Whether HMRC is estopped from denying service was valid

Ratio Decidendi

Although service was not valid under a strict reading of the Press Release and CPR, the ambiguity of the guidance, the reasonable steps taken by the claimants' solicitor, and HMRC's conduct justified retrospective validation of service under CPR 6.15. There was no estoppel by convention, but good reason existed to treat service as valid. The substantive claims are arguable and permission is granted.

Court Disposition

Permission granted; service validated under CPR 6.15

Orders

  • Good service deemed to have taken place on 9 March 2022 and 17 March 2022 for the respective claims.
  • Permission to proceed with the judicial review is granted.