Thomas Holdings Ltd v Revenue & Customs [2011] UKFTT 656 (TC) (10 October 2011)

Thomas Holdings Ltd v Revenue & Customs [2011] UKFTT 656 (TC) (10 October 2011)

HMRC acted unreasonably in defending and conducting the proceedings by failing to engage with key legal arguments, not complying with directions, improperly referring to without prejudice correspondence, and withdrawing their decision only immediately before the hearing, causing unnecessary costs to the appellant....

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2011] UKFTT 656 (TC)
Parties
Appellant: Thomas Holdings Limited; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
10 October 2011
Procedural Posture
VAT Appeal / Costs Determination Following Withdrawal of Substantive Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed by consent; costs awarded against HMRC.
Legal Topics
VAT Repayment, Costs in Tribunal Proceedings, Unreasonable Conduct, Group VAT Registration
Tax Law Administrative Law VAT Repayment Costs in Tribunal Proceedings Unreasonable Conduct Group VAT Registration

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thomas Holdings Limited

Appellant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

VAT Appeal / Costs Determination Following Withdrawal of Substantive Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether HMRC acted unreasonably in defending or conducting the proceedings under Rule 10(1)(b) of the Tribunal Rules
  2. 2 Whether costs should be awarded against HMRC for their conduct

Ratio Decidendi

HMRC acted unreasonably in defending and conducting the proceedings by failing to engage with key legal arguments, not complying with directions, improperly referring to without prejudice correspondence, and withdrawing their decision only immediately before the hearing, causing unnecessary costs to the appellant. Costs are awarded against HMRC on the standard basis, but not on an indemnity basis as their conduct was not wholly unreasonable.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed by consent; costs awarded against HMRC.

Orders

  • Respondents to pay Appellant interest on sums claimed, amount to be agreed or determined by Tribunal.
  • Respondents to pay Appellant’s costs on the standard basis, sum to be agreed or determined by a Costs Judge.