Elden v Revenue and Customs [2026] UKFTT 41 (TC) (08 January 2026)

Elden v Revenue and Customs [2026] UKFTT 41 (TC) (08 January 2026)

The Tribunal found that while the Appellant and his representative were repeatedly late and careless in complying with directions, all substantive information was eventually provided and HMRC suffered no irreparable prejudice. The use of AI-generated and inaccurate authorities in submissions was criticised but did not, in itself, prevent a fair hearing. The Tribunal held that strike out is a measure of last resort and that lesser case management tools remain available to address procedural failings. Accordingly, the threshold for strike out under Rule 8(3)(b) was not met.

Citation
[2026] UKFTT 41
Parties
Appellant: Mr Gary Elden; Respondents: The Commissioners for His Majesty's Revenue and Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
08 January 2026
Procedural Posture
Tax Appeal (first Tier Tribunal, Tax Chamber) / Application for Strike Out Under Rule 8(3)(b) of the Tribunal Procedure (first Tier Tribunal) (tax Chamber) Rules 2020
Outcome
Strike out application refused
Legal Topics
Strike Out Applications, Non Compliance With Tribunal Directions, Use of AI in Legal Submissions, Case Management Powers, Proportionality in Sanctions
Tax Law Civil Procedure Strike Out Applications Non Compliance With Tribunal Directions Use of AI in Legal Submissions Case Management Powers Proportionality in Sanctions

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 6 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Gary Elden

Appellant

The Commissioners for His Majesty's Revenue and Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Tax Appeal (first Tier Tribunal, Tax Chamber) / Application for Strike Out Under Rule 8(3)(b) of the Tribunal Procedure (first Tier Tribunal) (tax Chamber) Rules 2020

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Appellant's repeated non-compliance with Tribunal directions justifies striking out the appeal under Rule 8(3)(b)
  2. 2 Whether the use of AI-generated and inaccurate legal authorities in submissions constitutes grounds for strike out
  3. 3 Whether HMRC has been prejudiced by the Appellant's procedural defaults

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that while the Appellant and his representative were repeatedly late and careless in complying with directions, all substantive information was eventually provided and HMRC suffered no irreparable prejudice. The use of AI-generated and inaccurate authorities in submissions was criticised but did not, in itself, prevent a fair hearing. The Tribunal held that strike out is a measure of last resort and that lesser case management tools remain available to address procedural failings. Accordingly, the threshold for strike out under Rule 8(3)(b) was not met.

Court Disposition

Strike out application refused

Orders

  • The appeal is not struck out and will proceed to a substantive hearing.
  • Parties are reminded of their continuing obligations to comply with Tribunal directions and to ensure accuracy in legal submissions, especially when using AI tools.