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 there was a real possibility of bias based on the Tribunal’s comments or directions. The comments addressed the appellant’s awareness of penalties and did not express a view on actual liability or deservingness. The Directions were procedural and responded to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] UKFTT 250 (TC)
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 Joined Tax Appeals / First Tier Tribunal Decision
Outcome
Recusal application refused
Legal Topics
Recusal of Judge, Bias, Corporation Tax, Penalties, Permission to Appeal, Case Management Directions
Tax Law Administrative Law Tribunal Procedure Recusal of Judge Bias Corporation Tax Penalties Permission to Appeal +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Spring Capital Limited

Appellant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Recusal Application in Joined Tax Appeals / 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 and objections indicate bias

Ratio Decidendi

A fair-minded and informed observer would not conclude there was a real possibility of bias based on the Tribunal’s comments or directions. The comments addressed the appellant’s awareness of penalties and did not express a view on actual liability or deservingness. The Directions were procedural and responded to issues raised by the parties. No evidence of bias was found.

Court Disposition

Recusal application refused

Orders

  • The Tribunal judge will not recuse himself from hearing the resumed appeal.
  • Any party dissatisfied may apply for permission to appeal within 56 days pursuant to Rule 39.