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 has jurisdiction to hear the appeal against the personal liability notice; Article 6 ECHR is engaged but does not require a criminal standard of proof or a stay; the civil standard of proof applies; it is an abuse of process for Mr Hackett to re-litigate issues determined in the 09/06 period but not for periods where company appeals were withdrawn without determination; the prior tribunal decision is admissible as evidence.

Citation
[2016] UKFTT 781 (TC)
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 determined as follows: stay refused, criminal standard of proof refused, HMRC's strike-out application allowed only as to issues determined in the 09/06 period, otherwise refused, prior tribunal decision admitted as evidence.
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 standard of proof should be criminal or civil in penalty appeals
  3. 3 Whether Mr Hackett can re-litigate issues determined or withdrawn in prior company appeals

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the appeal against the personal liability notice; Article 6 ECHR is engaged but does not require a criminal standard of proof or a stay; the civil standard of proof applies; it is an abuse of process for Mr Hackett to re-litigate issues determined in the 09/06 period but not for periods where company appeals were withdrawn without determination; the prior tribunal decision is admissible as evidence.

Court Disposition

Applications determined as follows: stay refused, criminal standard of proof refused, HMRC's strike-out application allowed only as to issues determined in the 09/06 period, otherwise refused, prior tribunal decision admitted as evidence.

Orders

  • Stay of proceedings refused
  • Criminal standard of proof refused; civil standard applies