TC09625 - [2025] UKFTT 01066 (TC)

Mr Mciver also submitted that it would not be fair and just to grant the Application, because it placed on HMRC the obligation of looking for evidence to support UWG’s case, when it was UWG that had the burden of proof.

However, for the reasons already set out, I find it to be fair and just for HMRC to disclose the information it holds, as long as it is within the scope of the direction set out in the Appendix to this decision. More generally, I agree with Judge Greenbank, who said in Addo at [63] that:

“…it should ordinarily be regarded as fair and just for a party to be entitled to review documents held by the other party or to which the other party has access which are relevant to the issues in the case, even if those documents are not documents on which the other party itself intends to rely (and so the documents are not within FTR rule 27) and even if they are detrimental to the other party’s case.”

Like Judge Greenbank, I also agree with Judge Richards (as he then was), who said in Tower Bridge that:

“the concept of ‘relevance’ should not set ‘an unduly high bar’ and should be taken, in principle to include documents or information that might advance…a party’s case or which may lead to ‘a train of enquiry’ that might advance…a party’s case.”