Calltel Telecom Ltd & Anor v Revenue & Customs [2008] EWHC 2107 (Ch) (06 June 2008)

Calltel Telecom Ltd & Anor v Revenue & Customs [2008] EWHC 2107 (Ch) (06 June 2008)

Security for costs was ordered because the appellant companies are insolvent, there is no evidence the order would stifle the appeal, Mr Gohir has both the means and motive to fund security, and it is just to protect the Revenue from being unable to recover costs if successful. Security for costs incurred before the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2008] EWHC 2107 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Calltel Telecom Ltd & Opto Telelinks (Europe) Ltd; Defendant: HM Revenue & Customs
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 June 2008
Procedural Posture
Appeal From VAT Tribunal Decision / Interlocutory Applications for Security for Costs Pending Appeal
Outcome
Applications for security for costs granted.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, VAT Input Credits, Appeals as of Right, Case Management Powers, Impecuniosity and Stifling of Appeals
Civil Procedure Tax Law Security for Costs VAT Input Credits Appeals as of Right Case Management Powers Impecuniosity and Stifling of Appeals

Source-derived case record

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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Calltel Telecom Ltd & Opto Telelinks (Europe) Ltd

Claimant

HM Revenue & Customs

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal From VAT Tribunal Decision / Interlocutory Applications for Security for Costs Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether security for costs should be ordered against appellants in a VAT appeal to the High Court
  2. 2 Whether security for costs would stifle the appeal
  3. 3 Whether the appellants' impecuniosity, caused by the Revenue's refusal of VAT credits, is a bar to ordering security

Ratio Decidendi

Security for costs was ordered because the appellant companies are insolvent, there is no evidence the order would stifle the appeal, Mr Gohir has both the means and motive to fund security, and it is just to protect the Revenue from being unable to recover costs if successful. Security for costs incurred before the tribunal was also ordered as a condition of prosecuting the appeal, as Mr Gohir funded the litigation for his own interests and there is a compelling reason to prevent a 'heads I win, tails you lose' outcome.

Court Disposition

Applications for security for costs granted.

Orders

  • Order for security for costs of £175,000 split between costs of appeal (£60,000) and costs below (£115,000), to be paid within 28 days; appeal to be struck out if not paid within that time.
  • Summary assessment of costs in the sum of £17,392.40, to be paid within 28 days.