HM Revenue & Customs v Anderson [2006] ScotCS CSOH_140 (08 September 2006)

HM Revenue & Customs v Anderson [2006] ScotCS CSOH_140 (08 September 2006)

The defender failed to provide an adequate or credible explanation for not complying with the seven day time limit for recall of decree in absence. There was no mistake, oversight, or excusable cause shown. The defences lodged were skeletal and did not amount to a colourable defence. The motion for recall was therefore refused.

Citation
[2006] ScotCS CSOH_140
Parties
Pursuer: The Advocate General for Scotland for and on behalf of the Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs; Defender: Alexander Anderson
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
08 September 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil / Motion for Recall of Decree in Absence
Outcome
motion refused
Legal Topics
Recall of Decree in Absence, Failure to Lodge Defences, Income Tax Assessment, Proceeds of Crime Act Restraint, Court Discretion Under Procedural Rules
Tax Law Civil Procedure Recall of Decree in Absence Failure to Lodge Defences Income Tax Assessment Proceeds of Crime Act Restraint Court Discretion Under Procedural Rules

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

Parties

The Advocate General for Scotland for and on behalf of the Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

Pursuer

Alexander Anderson

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Motion for Recall of Decree in Absence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defender's failure to comply with the seven day time limit for recall of decree in absence is excusable under Rule of Court 2.1
  2. 2 Whether the defender has a colourable defence to the tax claim
  3. 3 Whether the defender's human rights were infringed

Ratio Decidendi

The defender failed to provide an adequate or credible explanation for not complying with the seven day time limit for recall of decree in absence. There was no mistake, oversight, or excusable cause shown. The defences lodged were skeletal and did not amount to a colourable defence. The motion for recall was therefore refused.

Court Disposition

motion refused

Orders

  • Motion for recall of decree in absence refused.
  • Defender to be liable for the expenses of the hearing.