TC09638 - [2025] UKFTT 01112 (TC)

The Tribunal grants the application in part.

Disclosure is to be effected by HMRC by way of an updated List of Documents, clearly identifying documents not hitherto disclosed, to be served by no later than 4pm 30 October 2025. By that same time and date, inspection of documents not hitherto disclosed is to be done by way of the provision of copy documents. HMRC shall inform that Tribunal that this has been done. I have directed 30 October of my own initiative, and on the footing that (i) HMRC is not dealing with this ab initio; (ii) a second-sweep is likelier to be quicker and easier than the first time round.

All other directions are stayed pending disclosure. Within 28 days of the date of disclosure, the parties shall contact the Tribunal informing it as to any further directions, or consequential timings, agreed if possible.

I have used AI in the production of this decision.

This application is well-suited to this approach. It is a discrete case-management matter, dealt with on the papers, and without a hearing. The parties' respective positions on the issue which I must decide are contained entirely in their written submissions and the other materials placed before me. I have not heard any evidence; nor am I called upon to make any decision as to the honesty or credibility of any party.

In his Practice Direction on Reasons for Decisions, released on 4 June 2024, the Senior President of Tribunals wrote:

I regard AI as such a tool, and this is the first decision in which I have grasped the nettle of using it. Although judges are not generally obliged to describe the research or preparatory work which may have been done in order to produce a judgment, it seems to me appropriate, in this case, for me to say what I have done.

The Senior President's guidance has recently been endorsed by the Upper Tribunal: see Medpro Healthcare v HMRC [2025] UKUT 255 (TCC) at [40] et seq (Marcus Smith J and UTJ Jonathan Cannan).

In April 2025, the senior Courts and Tribunals judiciary published "AI: Guidance for Judicial Office Holders". It is available online. It updated and replaced a guidance document originally issued in December 2023. The stated aim of the guidance was to assist judicial office holders in relation to the use of AI. It emphasises that any use of AI by or on behalf of the judiciary must be consistent with the judiciary’s overarching obligation to protect the integrity of the administration of justice. The guidance mandated the use of a private AI tool, Microsoft’s ‘Copilot Chat’, available to judicial office holders through our platform, eJudiciary. As long as judicial office holders are logged into their eJudiciary accounts, the data they enter into Copilot remains secure and private. Unlike other large language models, it is not made public.

Principally, I have used AI to summarise the documents, but I have satisfied myself that the summaries - treated only as a first-draft - are accurate. I have not used the AI for legal research.

I am mindful that "the critical underlying principle is that it must be clear from a fair reading of the decision that the judge has brought their own independent judgment to bear in determining the issues before them": see Medpro at [43]. This decision has my name at the end. I am the decision-maker, and I am responsible for this material. The judgment applied - in the sense of the evaluative faculty, weighing-up the arguments, and framing the terms of the order - has been entirely mine.

This document contains full findings of fact and reasons for the decision. Any party dissatisfied with this decision has a right to apply for permission to appeal against it pursuant to Rule 39 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009. The application must be received by this Tribunal not later than 56 days after this decision is sent to that party. The parties are referred to “Guidance to accompany a Decision from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)” which accompanies and forms part of this decision notice.