Spring Capital Ltd v Revenue and Customs (includes 2nd application) (PROCEDURE : recusal application) [2018] UKFTT 250 (TC) (01 May 2018)

Spring Capital Ltd v Revenue and Customs (includes 2nd application) (PROCEDURE : recusal application) [2018] UKFTT 250 (TC) (01 May 2018)

A fair-minded and informed observer would not conclude that there was a real possibility of bias based on the Tribunal's comments or directions. The comments were contextually addressing the appellant's argument for a late appeal and did not express a view on actual liability for penalties. The Directions were standard case management and did not restrict the appellant's procedural rights. The recusal application is refused.

Citation
[2018] UKFTT 250
Parties
Appellant: Spring Capital Limited; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
01 May 2018
Procedural Posture
Recusal Application in Tax Appeal / First Tier Tribunal Decision
Outcome
Recusal application refused
Legal Topics
Recusal, Bias, Corporation Tax, Penalties, Permission to Appeal, Case Management
Tax Law Administrative Law Tribunal Procedure Recusal Bias Corporation Tax Penalties Permission to Appeal +1 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 3 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Spring Capital Limited

Appellant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Recusal Application in Tax Appeal / First Tier Tribunal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether comments made by the Tribunal in a prior decision create a real possibility of bias warranting recusal
  2. 2 Whether Tribunal directions regarding evidence indicate bias
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain a second application for permission to appeal

Ratio Decidendi

A fair-minded and informed observer would not conclude that there was a real possibility of bias based on the Tribunal's comments or directions. The comments were contextually addressing the appellant's argument for a late appeal and did not express a view on actual liability for penalties. The Directions were standard case management and did not restrict the appellant's procedural rights. The recusal application is refused.

Court Disposition

Recusal application refused

Orders

  • Recusal application is denied; Tribunal will proceed to hear the appeal.