The Commissioners for HMRC v Donatas Labeikis & Ors

The Commissioners for HMRC v Donatas Labeikis & Ors

The Part 8 claims are public law challenges to the validity of tax legislation and should have been brought by judicial review under CPR Part 54. The existence of a 3-month time limit for judicial review and the possibility of an extension under CPR 3.1 do not justify an exception to the exclusivity principle. The statutory tribunal process provides an effective remedy, including for EU law issues, and the principle of effectiveness does not require immediate declaratory relief in the High Court. The claims are an abuse of process and should be struck out. The application for recusal is without merit as prior professional connections do not give rise to apparent bias.

Parties
Appellant/defendant: THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HIS MAJESTY’S REVENUE AND CUSTOMS; Respondent/claimant: Donatas Labeikis and others
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 July 2024
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Order of Master Dagnall Dated 20 January 2022
Outcome
Appeal allowed; Part 8 claims to be struck out as an abuse of process; recusal application refused.
Legal Topics
Loan Charge, Disguised Remuneration Schemes, Abuse of Process, Judicial Review Exclusivity, Compatibility With EU Law, Compatibility With ECHR, Francovich Damages, Statutory Appeal Process, Effectiveness Principle
Tax Law Public Law Civil Procedure Human Rights Law EU Law Loan Charge Disguised Remuneration Schemes Abuse of Process +6 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 5 Authorities cited 31 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HIS MAJESTY’S REVENUE AND CUSTOMS

Appellant/defendant

Donatas Labeikis and others

Respondent/claimant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Order of Master Dagnall Dated 20 January 2022

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Part 8 claims should be struck out as an abuse of process for not being brought by judicial review under CPR Part 54
  2. 2 Whether the statutory tax tribunal process provides an effective remedy under EU law (principle of effectiveness)
  3. 3 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to determine compatibility of tax legislation with EU law in advance of any assessment

Ratio Decidendi

The Part 8 claims are public law challenges to the validity of tax legislation and should have been brought by judicial review under CPR Part 54. The existence of a 3-month time limit for judicial review and the possibility of an extension under CPR 3.1 do not justify an exception to the exclusivity principle. The statutory tribunal process provides an effective remedy, including for EU law issues, and the principle of effectiveness does not require immediate declaratory relief in the High Court. The claims are an abuse of process and should be struck out. The application for recusal is without merit as prior professional connections do not give rise to apparent bias.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; Part 8 claims to be struck out as an abuse of process; recusal application refused.

Orders

  • Part 8 claims struck out as an abuse of process (subject to further submissions on consequential matters)
  • Recusal application refused