TC09678 - [2025] UKFTT 01320 (TC)

Fecha: 22-Oct-2025

Application to admit additional documents

Application to admit additional documents

13.

In the period immediately prior to the hearing additional documents were received from both parties that had not been included in the original bundle of documents. All such documents were admitted by us.

14.

However, during his cross examination, Mr Odong repeatedly asserted that additional documentary evidence was available to support the Appellant’s case. Mr Odong waved at us his current operating procedures and policies manual indicating that it would substantiate matters on which he was being cross examined. Eventually, Mr Ajayi made an application that the Appellant be given the opportunity, after the hearing, to review what further documents there may be which might then be admitted in evidence.

15.

We refused the application for the following reasons:

(1)

Directions were issued in this appeal by Judge Poon on 29 August 2024 requiring that no later than 19 September 2024 each party was to produce a list of documents in the party’s possession custody or power on which that party intended to rely or produce in connection with the appeal. The Appellant produced a list of documents. The directions also provided for service of Appellant’s witness statements no later than 31 October 2024. The statement of Mr Odong was served together with an exhibit to that statement. The statement did not reference the operating policies and procedures manual or any other documents in addition to those on the list of documents and/or exhibited on which reliance was to be placed.

(2)

In accordance with the directions, on 9 September 2025, HMRC served an index for the bundle. Attached to the index was the Appellant’s list of documents requesting the provision of documents not then held by HMRC and explicitly inviting the Appellant to notify any additional documents to be included in the bundle. The Appellant did not invite HMRC to include additional documents.

(3)

However, in the last couple of days prior to the hearing, both parties served additional documents to which they intended to refer.

(4)

At no point until he was cross examined did Mr Odong consider the documents to be relevant. Beside the operating manual (which was a current document said to have evolved since its creation) there was no specific document identified to which the application was made; it was a general application for documents to be identified and subsequently served.

(5)

No explanation was given as to why the need for additional documents to be included had not been identified previously and included in the list of documents. This despite HMRC challenging the adequacy of the Appellant’s evidence in their skeleton argument.

(6)

This appeal concerns VAT periods between 11 and 9 years ago. The Assessments were issued 9 years ago, and the appeal made 8 years ago. The time for identifying relevant documents pertaining to the Relevant Period arose over a year ago. In the absence of any explanation for the failure and without having particularised the documents to which the application was made the effect of granting the application would have been to adjourn the appeal.

(7)

In all these circumstances we did not consider it in the interests of the overriding objective to grant the application.