Tradium Ltd v Revenue & Customs [2014] UKFTT 894 (TC) (12 September 2014)

Tradium Ltd v Revenue & Customs [2014] UKFTT 894 (TC) (12 September 2014)

The appellant failed to provide an adequate explanation for non-compliance with the Tribunal's direction to serve witness statements, showed no credible prospect of future compliance, and the merits of the appeal were weak. In the interests of justice and efficient case management, the application for extension was refused and the appeal was struck out under Rule 8(3)(a).

Citation
[2014] UKFTT 894 (TC)
Parties
Appellant: Tradium Ltd; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
12 September 2014
Procedural Posture
Tax Appeal (first Tier Tribunal, Tax Chamber) / Interlocutory Application and Strike Out Decision
Outcome
Appeal struck out
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Strike Out for Non Compliance, Excise Warehousing Regulations, VAT Registration Cancellation, Tribunal Case Management
Tax Law Administrative Law Civil Procedure Extension of Time Strike Out for Non Compliance Excise Warehousing Regulations VAT Registration Cancellation Tribunal Case Management

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

Parties

Tradium Ltd

Appellant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Tax Appeal (first Tier Tribunal, Tax Chamber) / Interlocutory Application and Strike Out Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether time for service of witness statement should be extended
  2. 2 Whether appeal should be struck out under Rule 8(3)(a) of Tribunal Rules for non-compliance

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant failed to provide an adequate explanation for non-compliance with the Tribunal's direction to serve witness statements, showed no credible prospect of future compliance, and the merits of the appeal were weak. In the interests of justice and efficient case management, the application for extension was refused and the appeal was struck out under Rule 8(3)(a).

Court Disposition

Appeal struck out

Orders

  • Appellant's application for extension of time to serve witness statements refused
  • Appellant's appeal struck out under Rule 8(3)(a) of the Tribunal Rules