![TC09603 - [2025] UKFTT 00931 (TC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_7HSuEAV.png){kind=logo}
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 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 video hearing using Microsoft Teams. A face–to–face hearing was not held because it was expedient not to do so. I was provided with a bundle of documents of 436 pages, an authorities bundle and a skeleton argument from each party.
Prior notice of the hearing had been published on the gov.uk website, with information about how representatives of the media or members of the public could apply to join the hearing remotely in order to observe the proceedings. As such, the hearing was held in public.
Introduction
The appeal to which this decision relates concerns the Respondents’ rejection of an error correction notice (the “ECN”) which was submitted on behalf of the Appellant on 28 July 2022 on the basis that supplies made to it by two suppliers, Adrian Flux Insurance Services (“Flux”) and Herts Insurance Consultant Limited (“HIC” and, together with Flux, the “Suppliers”) over the periods 1 November 2011 to 31 March 2019 (the “First Period”), 1 April 2019 to 31 March 2021 (the “Second Period”) and 1 April 2021 to 28 February 2022 (the “Third Period”), were properly subject to VAT and gave rise to an entitlement on the part of the Appellant to recover value added tax (“VAT”) input tax.
- 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