Hackett v Revenue & Customs (PROCEDURE - personal liability notice) [2016] UKFTT 781 (TC) (23 November 2016)

Hackett v Revenue & Customs (PROCEDURE - personal liability notice) [2016] UKFTT 781 (TC) (23 November 2016)

The tribunal held that it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal against the personal liability notice, that proceeding by way of civil penalty was not an abuse of process, that Article 6 ECHR rights were met, that the civil standard of proof applied, and that Mr Hackett could not re-litigate issues already determined in the 09/06 period but could contest facts for periods where the company's appeals were withdrawn. The prior tribunal decision was admissible as evidence.

Citation
[2016] UKFTT 781
Parties
Appellant: Lindsay Hackett; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
23 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Appeal Against Personal Liability Notice (tax Penalty) / Case Management Hearing With Interlocutory Applications
Outcome
Applications largely dismissed; directions given.
Legal Topics
Personal Liability Notice, Civil Penalties, Standard of Proof, Abuse of Process, Article 6 ECHR, Res Judicata, Admissibility of Evidence
Tax Law Human Rights Law Civil Procedure Personal Liability Notice Civil Penalties Standard of Proof Abuse of Process Article 6 ECHR +2 more

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 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lindsay Hackett

Appellant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal Against Personal Liability Notice (tax Penalty) / Case Management Hearing With Interlocutory Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether HMRC's decision to proceed by way of civil penalty is an abuse of process
  2. 2 Whether the inability to obtain a representation order justifies a stay
  3. 3 Whether the standard of proof should be criminal or civil

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal held that it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal against the personal liability notice, that proceeding by way of civil penalty was not an abuse of process, that Article 6 ECHR rights were met, that the civil standard of proof applied, and that Mr Hackett could not re-litigate issues already determined in the 09/06 period but could contest facts for periods where the company's appeals were withdrawn. The prior tribunal decision was admissible as evidence.

Court Disposition

Applications largely dismissed; directions given.

Orders

  • Refused Mr Hackett's application for a stay of proceedings.
  • Refused Mr Hackett's application for criminal standard of proof; civil standard applies.