Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
England and Wales decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The Tribunal upheld service of ESOS notices but found the £33,750 civil penalty unreasonable, reducing it to £16,875 and directing a revised notice.
Upper Tribunal held the FTT unfairly misled the appellant about video evidence from abroad, set aside the decision, and remitted the case.
The Tribunal dismissed Mr Sivarajah’s appeal against an HMRC money laundering registration penalty, finding he had not taken all reasonable steps or due diligence.
The High Court allowed a late appeal against an immigration civil penalty, holding that court staff error and misleading payment advice justified an exceptional extension of time.
Court of Appeal case on whether, in tax penalty appeals, HMRC or the taxpayer bears the burden of proving underlying tax liability challenged as part of the penalty defence.
The appellant breached the registration requirements by trading as an estate agency business whilst unregistered, failed to follow HMRC guidance on renewal, and did not take all reasonable steps or exercise due diligence. The penalty was correctly calculated, reduced for cooperation, and is proportionate, effective, and dissuasive. The appeal is dismissed and the penalty upheld.
Source excerpt
The Upper Tribunal restored a £4,000 penalty for Michael John for selective licensing breaches, but upheld no penalty for Lisa John.
The Upper Tribunal allowed the council’s appeal against a reduced housing penalty, reinstated the £12,000 fine, and refused judicial review of the FTT’s review decision.
The Environment Agency's use of the highest possible authorisation price to calculate the penalty was unreasonable and disproportionate, as it was an outlier and not supported by the evidence or the Agency's own policy. The correct approach was to use the policy's prescribed starting point (£60,000), which sufficiently removed any financial gain and was proportionate.
Source excerpt
The Environment Agency failed to consider whether advice and guidance would have sufficed or whether punishment was necessary, as required by its Enforcement and Sanctions Policy. Given Aermec's good faith efforts, lack of financial gain, and unclear guidance, it was unreasonable to impose a penalty.
Source excerpt
Explore more
