TC09548 - [2025] UKFTT 00700 (TC)

HMRC also submitted that the First Decision was “founded on” HMRC’s public law obligations, and that (my emphasis) “these public law duties do not apply in the context of the detailed procedural rules applicable to the institution of proceedings before the First-tier Tribunal”, and I had thus made an error of law.

There was no error of law. The Decision was not “founded on” HMRC’s failure to comply with its public law obligations, but on the Appellant’s compliance with Rule 20. However, that compliance had to be understood against the factual background of the unreasoned Determinations issued by HMRC and their failure to comply with their public law obligations.

HMRC’s assertion that in the context of the Tribunal Rules, their “public law duties do not apply” (my emphasis) is incorrect. Instead, as Arden LJ said in Bupa Purchasing, those duties exist whether or not they are set out in the particular legislative provision. Just as the duties did not need to be referred to in VATA s 73, which was considered in Bupa Purchasing they similarly do not need to be referred to in the Tribunal Rules (which are secondary legislation), in order to be binding on HMRC.