Smartprice (NE) Ltd v Revenue and Customs (PROCEDURE - Disclosure - Application for general and specific disclosure) [2026] UKFTT 721 (TC) (15 May 2026)

Smartprice (NE) Ltd v Revenue and Customs (PROCEDURE - Disclosure - Application for general and specific disclosure) [2026] UKFTT 721 (TC) (15 May 2026)

The Tribunal refused the application for further disclosure because the Appellant failed to demonstrate that the additional disclosure sought was required for the fair determination of the pleaded issues, that the material was likely to be probative, or that the burden and delay of wider disclosure would be proportionate. The default disclosure regime under Rule 27 remains appropriate in this Kittel appeal, where no dishonesty is pleaded and the issues are narrowly defined.

Citation
[2026] UKFTT 721
Parties
Appellant: Smartprice (NE) Ltd; Respondents: The Commissioners for His Majesty's Revenue and Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
15 May 2026
Procedural Posture
VAT Appeal (first Tier Tribunal, Tax Chamber) / Interlocutory Application for Disclosure
Outcome
Application for further disclosure refused
Legal Topics
Disclosure, VAT Fraud, Kittel Principle, Tribunal Procedure
Tax Law Civil Procedure Disclosure VAT Fraud Kittel Principle Tribunal Procedure

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Smartprice (NE) Ltd

Appellant

The Commissioners for His Majesty's Revenue and Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

VAT Appeal (first Tier Tribunal, Tax Chamber) / Interlocutory Application for Disclosure

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether further general and specific disclosure should be ordered beyond the default regime under Tribunal Rule 27 in a Kittel VAT appeal
  2. 2 Whether fairness or proportionality requires wider disclosure, including material from criminal proceedings and internal HMRC documents

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal refused the application for further disclosure because the Appellant failed to demonstrate that the additional disclosure sought was required for the fair determination of the pleaded issues, that the material was likely to be probative, or that the burden and delay of wider disclosure would be proportionate. The default disclosure regime under Rule 27 remains appropriate in this Kittel appeal, where no dishonesty is pleaded and the issues are narrowly defined.

Court Disposition

Application for further disclosure refused

Orders

  • No further disclosure is ordered.