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 from specified individuals was relevant and would have been ordered, but SHL did not have possession or control of the requested emails as required by law. The Tribunal found no general consent for SHL to search non-UK group company records, so the Schlumberger principle did not apply. Accordingly, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to order disclosure of those documents. The Tribunal also found that, given the extensive prior enquiry and the proportionality principle, further disclosure was not justified for certain individuals, and the period for any search should be limited to one year with search terms to be agreed by...

Citation
[2021] UKFTT 236
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) / Interlocutory Application for Disclosure Prior to Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Application for further disclosure allowed in part but refused in practice due to lack of possession or control by SHL.
Legal Topics
Disclosure of Documents, Unallowable Purpose (corporation Tax Act 2009 S441), Proportionality in Disclosure, Possession and Control of Documents, Case Management in Tax Appeals
Tax Law Civil Procedure Disclosure of Documents Unallowable Purpose (corporation Tax Act 2009 S441) Proportionality in Disclosure Possession and Control of Documents Case Management in Tax Appeals

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 5 Authorities cited 12 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) / Interlocutory Application for Disclosure Prior to Substantive Hearing

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 the issues in the substantive appeal
  3. 3 Whether SHL has possession or control of the requested documents/emails

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal held that, in principle, further disclosure of emails from specified individuals was relevant and would have been ordered, but SHL did not have possession or control of the requested emails as required by law. The Tribunal found no general consent for SHL to search non-UK group company records, so the Schlumberger principle did not apply. Accordingly, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to order disclosure of those documents. The Tribunal also found that, given the extensive prior enquiry and the proportionality principle, further disclosure was not justified for certain individuals, and the period for any search should be limited to one year with search terms to be agreed by...

Court Disposition

Application for further disclosure allowed in part but refused in practice due to lack of possession or control by SHL.

Orders

  • Disclosure of emails from Matthew Bayliss, Simon Perry, Peter Schreiner, Antoine Kuntschen, and Thomas Schwarb would have been ordered in principle, limited to one year prior to the transaction and subject to agreed search terms, but not ordered due to lack of possession/control.
  • Disclosure of emails from Christian Wierenga refused as not relevant.