TC09625 - [2025] UKFTT 01066 (TC)

In his skeleton argument, Mr Mciver said that “there was no necessity for disclosure”, as the case law showed that it was for each party to put forward its evidence. HMRC took the same approach in a letter to Mr Thornton on 2 July 2025, saying that it was for UWG to establish its defence based on the facts it can establish.

However, Mr Mciver’s skeleton did not include any reference to Hughes, and he rightly conceded in the hearing that the UT had there endorsed the approach now taken by Mr Thornton, namely applying to the Tribunal for a direction that HMRC carry out a search and then disclose documents and/or information.

The FTT had taken a similar approach in Tideswell, saying it was “difficult to see circumstances in which a Tribunal would refuse an application for disclosure of evidence in HMRC’s possession that might help to establish an earlier duty point where it was properly made”, and continuing:

“Where an appellant believes that, despite requests, HMRC has not disclosed such material, that would be an obvious application for an appellant to make.”

The final part of the Application makes it clear that UWG has already sought to obtain disclosure by making more informal requests, and only applied to the Tribunal because, in as Mr Thornton put it, that process had been “unsatisfactory”.