S & I Electronics Ltd v Revenue and Customs (PROCEDURE : Other) [2016] UKFTT 260 (TC) (19 April 2016)

S & I Electronics Ltd v Revenue and Customs (PROCEDURE : Other) [2016] UKFTT 260 (TC) (19 April 2016)

It would not be just and fair to exercise the discretion to apply the Old Costs Rules to the FTT Hearing held after 1 April 2009, given the absence of timely application by HMRC, the default position under the new rules, and the split in work and costs before and after the rule change. A split order is appropriate, and the application for costs for the FTT Hearing is refused.

Citation
[2016] UKFTT 260 (TC)
Parties
Appellant: S&I Electronics PLC; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
19 April 2016
Procedural Posture
VAT Appeal (costs Application) / Decision on Costs Following Remittal and Further Hearing
Outcome
Application for costs in relation to the FTT Hearing refused.
Legal Topics
VAT, Costs, Transitional Provisions, Tribunal Rules
Tax Law Tribunal Procedure VAT Costs Transitional Provisions Tribunal Rules

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

S&I Electronics PLC

Appellant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

VAT Appeal (costs Application) / Decision on Costs Following Remittal and Further Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Old Costs Rules (Rule 29 of the VAT Tribunal Rules 1986) should apply to the costs of a further hearing held after 1 April 2009 in proceedings commenced before that date, or whether the default no-costs regime under the First-tier Tribunal Rules applies.

Ratio Decidendi

It would not be just and fair to exercise the discretion to apply the Old Costs Rules to the FTT Hearing held after 1 April 2009, given the absence of timely application by HMRC, the default position under the new rules, and the split in work and costs before and after the rule change. A split order is appropriate, and the application for costs for the FTT Hearing is refused.

Court Disposition

Application for costs in relation to the FTT Hearing refused.

Orders

  • No direction made in relation to the costs of the FTT Hearing.