The case law
The case law
The approach to appealing case management decisions was summarised by Sales J (as he then was) in HMRC v Ingenious Games LLP [2014] UKUT 62 (TCC), [2014] STC 1416 at [56] and approved at [52] of the subsequent Ingenious Games judgment of Henderson J (as he then was), published under reference [2015] UKUT 0105 (TCC):
“The Upper Tribunal should not interfere with case management decisions of the FTT when it has applied the correct principles and has taken into account matters which should be taken into account and left out of account matters
which are irrelevant, unless the Upper Tribunal is satisfied that the decision is so plainly wrong that it must be regarded as outside the generous ambit of discretion entrusted to the FTT: Fattal v Walbrook Trustees (Jersey) Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 427 at [33], [2008] All ER (D) 109 (May) at [33]; Revenue and Customs Comrs v Atlantic Electronics Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 651 at [18], [2013] STC 1632 at [18]. The Upper Tribunal should exercise extreme caution before allowing appeals from the FTT on case management decisions: Goldman Sachs International v Revenue and Customs Comrs … [2009] UKUT 290 (TCC) at [23] – [24], [2010] STC 763 at [23] – [24].”
Similar statements have been made in subsequent judgments; for example in Fairford Group plc v HMRC [2014] UKUT 329 (TCC) (“Fairford”) at [28], the UT said:
“The right to appeal derives from s 11 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, and is confined to a point of law. The Upper Tribunal should only interfere if it concludes that a decision is wrong in law or, to the extent that the FTT exercised a discretion, in doing so it failed to act reasonably and in a judicial way, see Mobile Export 365 Ltd and another v HMRC [2009] EWHC 797 (Ch) [2007] STC 1794 Sir Andrew Park at [13] and CCE v Young [1993] STC 394 at 397, Richards J. The FTT is conferred with a broad discretion in making case management decisions and this impacts on the degree of critical scrutiny which the Upper Tribunal will bring to bear.”
- Heading
- Introduction
- Publication of this decision
- The Salaried Member Rules
- The Compliance Check
- The Determinations
- The Appeal
- The F&B Application
- The First Decision
- The case law
- Schedule 36
- Duty to give reasons and Reg 80
- The Tribunal Rules
- Overall conclusion
- The PTA application in relation to the First Decision
- The case law
- The Grounds of the PTA Application
- Ground 1: Rule 20
- Ground 2: duty to give reasons
- Ground 3: burden of proof
- Ground 4: positive case
- Ground 5: case management of the appeal
- Ground 6: 4Site
- Ground 7
- Overall conclusion on the PTA Application relating to the First Decision
- The Statement of case
- The SoC Application
- The law
- Failure to provide full information?
- Failure to provide “any evidence of what the SMR position is”
- Acceptance in correspondence that the SMR had been incorrectly applied?
- Reliance on the fraud?
- Out of time Determinations
- Overall conclusion
- Directions
- PTA Application in relation to the Second Decision
- A bare assertion?
- The TMA
- The case law
- Duty to give reasons
- Discerning the Appellant’s case?
- The Directions
- Barring Order
- Other submissions
- Other
- Next steps
![TC09548 - [2025] UKFTT 00700 (TC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_7HSuEAV.png)