John Scofield v Revenue & Customs [2012] UKFTT 673 (TC) (10 January 2012)

John Scofield v Revenue & Customs [2012] UKFTT 673 (TC) (10 January 2012)

Although HMRC's conduct at the January 2011 hearing was unreasonable in several respects, including carelessness regarding Hansard and late arguments, no prejudice or additional costs resulted to the appellant; thus, a costs award would be punitive rather than compensatory and is not justified under Rule 10(1)(b).

Citation
[2012] UKFTT 673
Parties
Appellant: John Scofield; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
10 January 2012
Procedural Posture
Costs Application Under Rule 10, First Tier Tribunal (tax Chamber) Rules 2009 / Post Appeal Costs Application Following Substantive Appeal Decision
Outcome
Application for costs refused
Legal Topics
Costs, Unreasonable Conduct, Statutory Interpretation, Tribunal Procedure
Tax Law Civil Procedure Costs Unreasonable Conduct Statutory Interpretation 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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Scofield

Appellant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Costs Application Under Rule 10, First Tier Tribunal (tax Chamber) Rules 2009 / Post Appeal Costs Application Following Substantive Appeal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether HMRC acted unreasonably in defending or conducting proceedings under Rule 10(1)(b)
  2. 2 Whether costs should be awarded to the appellant

Ratio Decidendi

Although HMRC's conduct at the January 2011 hearing was unreasonable in several respects, including carelessness regarding Hansard and late arguments, no prejudice or additional costs resulted to the appellant; thus, a costs award would be punitive rather than compensatory and is not justified under Rule 10(1)(b).

Court Disposition

Application for costs refused