Syngenta Holdings Ltd v Revenue And Customs (PROCEDURE - application for disclosure following a lengthy enquiry) [2021] UKFTT 236 (TC) (25 June 2021)

Syngenta Holdings Ltd v Revenue And Customs (PROCEDURE - application for disclosure following a lengthy enquiry) [2021] UKFTT 236 (TC) (25 June 2021)

The Tribunal held that, in principle, further disclosure of emails of certain key individuals was relevant and would have been ordered, but SHL did not have possession or control of those emails as required by law. Therefore, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to order SHL to obtain and disclose them. The application for disclosure was allowed in part, but only to the extent that documents are within SHL’s possession or control.

Citation
[2021] UKFTT 236 (TC)
Parties
Appellant: Syngenta Holdings Limited; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
25 June 2021
Procedural Posture
Tax Tribunal Appeal / Case Management Decision on Disclosure Application
Outcome
Application for disclosure allowed in part; disclosure ordered only for documents within SHL’s possession or control.
Legal Topics
Disclosure of Documents, Corporation Tax, Loan Relationships, Unallowable Purpose, Case Management, Proportionality in Disclosure
Tax Law Civil Procedure Disclosure of Documents Corporation Tax Loan Relationships Unallowable Purpose Case Management Proportionality in Disclosure

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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Syngenta Holdings Limited

Appellant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Tax Tribunal Appeal / Case Management Decision on Disclosure Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether further disclosure should be ordered following a lengthy HMRC enquiry
  2. 2 Whether requested documents are relevant and proportionate to disclose
  3. 3 Whether SHL has possession or control of the requested documents, particularly emails of non-UK group employees

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal held that, in principle, further disclosure of emails of certain key individuals was relevant and would have been ordered, but SHL did not have possession or control of those emails as required by law. Therefore, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to order SHL to obtain and disclose them. The application for disclosure was allowed in part, but only to the extent that documents are within SHL’s possession or control.

Court Disposition

Application for disclosure allowed in part; disclosure ordered only for documents within SHL’s possession or control.

Orders

  • SHL to disclose relevant emails of specified individuals for a reduced period of one year, subject to agreed search terms, but only if such emails are within SHL’s possession or control.
  • If parties cannot agree search terms within 56 days, either may apply to the Tribunal for determination.