TC09640 - [2025] UKFTT 01114 (TC)

On the basis of the documents in the clip and, despite the challenges to the documents, we are satisfied, in accordance with the approach adopted in Mainpay UT, that the Appellant has demonstrated that it was the recipient of the following supplies:

Albeit in some regards incomplete, we consider that the copies of the MVA and the RMSL Contract each provide for supplies of doctors as temporary staff to the Appellant.

Each of the contracts places the worker under the direction and control of the Appellant.

As a consequence of the findings at 153 and 154 above the Appellant received a supply of staff.

There is a sufficient audit trail of documents showing that the roles filled by BK and SDR had been requested and ordered by the Appellant who can therefore be inferred to have required the services of a consultant psychiatrist and an A&E doctor in the periods in which BK and SDR were provided.

In respect of SDR the timesheets demonstrate the hours worked.

It is reasonable to infer that BK worked 39½ hours as HDL billed for those hours and the Appellant was prepared to pay for them.

The invoices issued to the Appellant showed VAT as a separate charge which was then paid by the Appellant.

The VAT on those supplies was received by HMRC from HDL and RMSL.

It is a matter of contract between the Appellant and HDL and RMSL whether it is entitled to recover the VAT as a contractual overpayment.