![TC09603 - [2025] UKFTT 00931 (TC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_7HSuEAV.png){kind=logo}
Relevant case law on the application of Rule 8(3)(c) of the Tribunal Rules
Relevant case law on the application of Rule 8(3)(c) of the Tribunal Rules
There is no dispute between the parties as to the approach which the FTT is required to take in exercising the power to strike out pursuant to Rule 8(3)(c) of the Tribunal Rules. The FTT is required to exercise the power in a manner analogous to the exercise by a court of the power in CPR 3.4(2)(a) to strike out a statement of case – see the UT decision in The Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v Fairford Group [2014] UKUT 329 (TCC), [2015] STC 156 (“Fairford”) at paragraph [30].
More detailed guidance on the principles involved was provided by the UT in The First De Sales Limited Partnership v The Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs [2018] UKUT 396 (TCC) (“First De Sales”) at paragraph [33], as follows:
- Heading
- The hearing took place on 30 July 2025. I heard Mr Tim Brown of counsel for the Appellant and Mr Sam Way of counsel for the Respondents. With the consent of the parties, the form of the hearing was a
- the background to the appeal
- case management history
- the issue at the hearing
- the law
- Relevant case law on the application of Rule 8(3)(c) of the Tribunal Rules
- Although the summary in Fairford Group Plc is very helpful, we prefer to apply the more detailed statement of principles in respect of application for summary judgment set out by Lewison J, as he then
- In reaching its conclusion the court must not conduct a 'mini-trial': Swain v Hillman This does not mean that the court must take at face value and without analysis everything that a claimant says in his statements before the court. In some cases it
- However, in reaching its conclusion the court must take into account not only the evidence actually placed before it on the application for summary judgment, but also the evidence that can reasonably
- Although a case may turn out at trial not to be really complicated, it does not follow that it should be decided without the fuller investigation into the facts at trial than is possible or permissibl
- On the other hand it is not uncommon for an application under Part 24 to give rise to a short point of law or construction and, if the court is satisfied that it has before it all the evidence necessa
- Other relevant case law
- discussion
- What did the Respondents decide?
- The parties’ submissions
- Conclusion
- What issues does the FTT have the jurisdiction to decide?
- Conclusions