Paul Judd v The Commissioners for HMRC

Paul Judd v The Commissioners for HMRC

There was sufficient identification between the appellant and the company in the previous VAT litigation such that it would be an abuse of process to allow the appellant to challenge the existence of inaccuracies in the company's VAT returns in his appeal against the personal liability notice. The application to amend the grounds of appeal to include this challenge is refused. However, the appellant is permitted to pursue grounds relating to whether any inaccuracy was deliberate and whether it was attributable to him.

Parties
Appellant: Paul Judd; Respondents: The Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Tax Penalty Appeal (personal Liability Notice) / Case Management Decision on Application to Amend Grounds of Appeal
Outcome
Application to amend grounds of appeal partially granted and partially refused.
Legal Topics
Value Added Tax (vat), Schedule 24 Finance Act 2007 Penalties, Personal Liability Notice (pln), Abuse of Process, Burden of Proof, Finality in Litigation
Tax Law Administrative Law Value Added Tax (vat) Schedule 24 Finance Act 2007 Penalties Personal Liability Notice (pln) Abuse of Process Burden of Proof Finality in Litigation

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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Judd

Appellant

The Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Tax Penalty Appeal (personal Liability Notice) / Case Management Decision on Application to Amend Grounds of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant can amend his grounds of appeal to challenge the existence of inaccuracies in the company's VAT returns in light of previous litigation
  2. 2 Whether it is an abuse of process for the appellant to raise issues already determined in company litigation
  3. 3 Whether the grounds relating to 'deliberate inaccuracy' and 'attribution' to the appellant are permissible

Ratio Decidendi

There was sufficient identification between the appellant and the company in the previous VAT litigation such that it would be an abuse of process to allow the appellant to challenge the existence of inaccuracies in the company's VAT returns in his appeal against the personal liability notice. The application to amend the grounds of appeal to include this challenge is refused. However, the appellant is permitted to pursue grounds relating to whether any inaccuracy was deliberate and whether it was attributable to him.

Court Disposition

Application to amend grounds of appeal partially granted and partially refused.

Orders

  • Application to amend grounds of appeal to include challenge to existence of inaccuracies in VAT returns is refused as an abuse of process.
  • Application to amend grounds of appeal regarding 'deliberate inaccuracy' and 'attribution' to the appellant is permitted.