L v Revenue and Customs (APPLICATION FOR ANONYMITY - test to be applied - sever financial loss) [2024] UKFTT 401 (TC) (17 May 2024)

L v Revenue and Customs (APPLICATION FOR ANONYMITY - test to be applied - sever financial loss) [2024] UKFTT 401 (TC) (17 May 2024)

The appellant is at serious risk of harm to health, including possible risk to life, if the hearing is public. This risk is objectively established by medical evidence and outweighs the principle of open justice. Anonymity and a private hearing are therefore justified under Rule 32(b), (c), and (e).

Citation
[2024] UKFTT 401
Parties
Appellant: L; Respondents: The Commissioners for His Majesty's Revenue and Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
17 May 2024
Procedural Posture
Application for Anonymity in Tax Appeal / Interlocutory Application Prior to Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Application for anonymity and private hearing allowed.
Legal Topics
Anonymity in Proceedings, Open Justice, Mental Health and Court Process, Confidentiality of Settlement Agreements
Tax Law Human Rights Law Procedural Law Anonymity in Proceedings Open Justice Mental Health and Court Process Confidentiality of Settlement Agreements

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 20 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

L

Appellant

The Commissioners for His Majesty's Revenue and Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Application for Anonymity in Tax Appeal / Interlocutory Application Prior to Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant is entitled to a private hearing and anonymisation of the substantive decision in a tax appeal on grounds of serious risk to health and/or financial harm

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant is at serious risk of harm to health, including possible risk to life, if the hearing is public. This risk is objectively established by medical evidence and outweighs the principle of open justice. Anonymity and a private hearing are therefore justified under Rule 32(b), (c), and (e).

Court Disposition

Application for anonymity and private hearing allowed.

Orders

  • The substantive hearing shall be in private.
  • The substantive decision shall be anonymised to prevent identification of the appellant.