Smartprice (NE) Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC

Smartprice (NE) Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC

The application for further disclosure was refused because the Appellant failed to demonstrate that the disclosure sought was relevant, proportionate, or necessary for the fair determination of the pleaded issues in this Kittel VAT appeal. The Tribunal found that the default disclosure regime was appropriate, the scope of the application was overly broad, and granting it would risk disproportionate burden, delay, and inefficiency.

Parties
Appellant: Smartprice (NE) Ltd; Respondents: The Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 May 2026
Procedural Posture
Tax Appeal / Interlocutory Application for Disclosure
Outcome
Application for further disclosure refused
Legal Topics
Disclosure, VAT Fraud, Kittel Principle, Proportionality, Tribunal Procedure
Tax Law Civil Procedure Disclosure VAT Fraud Kittel Principle Proportionality Tribunal Procedure

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Smartprice (NE) Ltd

Appellant

The Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Tax Appeal / Interlocutory Application for Disclosure

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether further general and specific disclosure should be ordered beyond the default regime under rule 27 of the Tribunal Rules in a Kittel VAT appeal
  2. 2 Whether the requested disclosure is relevant, proportionate, and necessary for the fair determination of the issues

Ratio Decidendi

The application for further disclosure was refused because the Appellant failed to demonstrate that the disclosure sought was relevant, proportionate, or necessary for the fair determination of the pleaded issues in this Kittel VAT appeal. The Tribunal found that the default disclosure regime was appropriate, the scope of the application was overly broad, and granting it would risk disproportionate burden, delay, and inefficiency.

Court Disposition

Application for further disclosure refused

Orders

  • Application for general and specific disclosure is refused