Aabsolute Bond Ltd v Revenue & Customs [2012] UKFTT 603 (TC) (26 September 2012)

Aabsolute Bond Ltd v Revenue & Customs [2012] UKFTT 603 (TC) (26 September 2012)

The application for a stay was refused because there was no real risk of prejudice to the director in potential criminal proceedings, no overlap of issues between the VAT appeal and any criminal investigation, no allegations of dishonesty in the appeal, and the application was made late. The overriding objective required timely resolution of the appeal, and the discretion to stay was not justified on the facts.

Citation
[2012] UKFTT 603 (TC)
Parties
Appellant: Aabsolute Bond Limited; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
26 September 2012
Procedural Posture
Application for Stay of Proceedings in VAT Appeal / Interlocutory Application Prior to Substantive Appeal Hearing
Outcome
Application for stay refused
Legal Topics
Stay of Proceedings, VAT Assessment, Overlap of Civil and Criminal Proceedings, Tribunal Discretion, Privilege Against Self Incrimination
Tax Law Civil Procedure Stay of Proceedings VAT Assessment Overlap of Civil and Criminal Proceedings Tribunal Discretion Privilege Against Self Incrimination

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

Parties

Aabsolute Bond Limited

Appellant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Application for Stay of Proceedings in VAT Appeal / Interlocutory Application Prior to Substantive Appeal Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the VAT appeal proceedings should be stayed pending possible criminal proceedings against a director of the appellant company
  2. 2 Whether proceeding with the appeal would prejudice potential criminal proceedings or the rights of the director

Ratio Decidendi

The application for a stay was refused because there was no real risk of prejudice to the director in potential criminal proceedings, no overlap of issues between the VAT appeal and any criminal investigation, no allegations of dishonesty in the appeal, and the application was made late. The overriding objective required timely resolution of the appeal, and the discretion to stay was not justified on the facts.

Court Disposition

Application for stay refused

Orders

  • The application for a stay of proceedings in respect of the VAT appeal is refused.