Cozens v Revenue and Customs (PROCEDURE : Other) [2016] UKFTT 390 (TC) (03 June 2016)

Cozens v Revenue and Customs (PROCEDURE : Other) [2016] UKFTT 390 (TC) (03 June 2016)

The application for costs was made over five months late with no good reason for the delay, and the delay continued even after the solicitors became aware of the time limit. The seriousness of the breach, lack of good reason, and the need to enforce compliance with the rules outweigh any limited prejudice to the parties. It is not in the interests of justice to extend time or admit the application.

Citation
[2016] UKFTT 390
Parties
Appellant: John Cozens; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
03 June 2016
Procedural Posture
Application for Costs in Tax Appeal / Post Judgment, Application for Extension of Time to Apply for Costs
Outcome
Application for extension of time refused; application for costs not admitted.
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Costs Applications, Relief From Sanctions, Excise Duty Assessment, Tribunal Procedure
Tax Law Civil Procedure Extension of Time Costs Applications Relief From Sanctions Excise Duty Assessment 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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Cozens

Appellant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Application for Costs in Tax Appeal / Post Judgment, Application for Extension of Time to Apply for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the tribunal should extend time for a late application for costs under Rule 10(4) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009
  2. 2 Whether there was a good reason for the delay in making the application for costs
  3. 3 Whether the interests of justice require the extension of time

Ratio Decidendi

The application for costs was made over five months late with no good reason for the delay, and the delay continued even after the solicitors became aware of the time limit. The seriousness of the breach, lack of good reason, and the need to enforce compliance with the rules outweigh any limited prejudice to the parties. It is not in the interests of justice to extend time or admit the application.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time refused; application for costs not admitted.

Orders

  • Refusal to extend time for costs application
  • No order as to costs