TC09158 - [2024] UKFTT 00369 (TC)

At the commencement of the appeal hearing, we heard HMRC’s application to admit late evidence, which comprised of further evidence of the employment status of Stewart Allerton and Dean West, both of whom were said to have worked for the third-party hauliers/drivers (“the late evidence”). HMRC had previously obtained witness statements from Wayne Bentley.

Mr Boyle indicated that he did not object to the admission of the late evidence. As Mr Boyle is a litigant-in-person, we considered: (i) whether the evidence was relevant to the appeal; (ii) whether there was any prejudice to the Appellant if the evidence was admitted; and (iii) whether there was any prejudice to HMRC if the evidence was not admitted. Having considered the issues in the appeal, we were satisfied that the new evidence was relevant to the appeal and did not introduce any new issues, but was intended to corroborate the evidence previously disclosed and relied on by HMRC (as notified to the Tribunal and the Appellant). We, therefore, admitted the late evidence; the presumption being that all relevant evidence should be admitted unless there is a compelling reason to the contrary: Atlantic Electronics Ltd v R & C Comrs [2013] EWCA Civ 651, at [31].

Mr Carey submitted that he was not intending to call Officer Davie and indicated that this had been dealt with by way of consent following discussions with Mr Boyle where Mr Boyle was said to have indicated that he did not wish to ask Officer Davie any questions on the basis that Officer Idowu (“the assessing officer”) had retired and Officer Davie did not appear, in his opinion, to add anything to the case. We explored Mr Boyle’s understanding of the significance of not being in a position to test any live evidence, in relation to any submissions that he later wished to make. Mr Boyle subsequently indicated that he did wish to cross-examine Officer Davie after all.