[2025] UKUT 061 (AAC)

That brings me to what I labelled “Ground 3” in my grant of permission: the argument that the judge managed the proceedings in a way which was unfair, including refusing the claimant’s request for a “continuation hearing”, and not taking into account, or explaining what he made of, the claimant’s post-hearing submissions.

The claimant says that the judge was dismissive of his case, ignored his evidence and arguments, I do not find those assertions to be supported either by the decision notice, the statement of reasons or the record of proceedings.

While the claimant says that his arguments were “ignored” or “dismissed” I do not find that to be so. The Tribunal wasn’t obliged to address every piece of evidence admitted into evidence or every argument that a party advanced. It only had to address these matters to the extent that they were material to its decision. It is clear to me having reviewed the papers that a great deal of the documentation that the claimant put into evidence was wholly irrelevant to the matters in issue in the appeals. As such, the Tribunal had no obligation to address it.

Turning to the application for a “continuation hearing”, this was a request made on 2 February 2024 (following the oral hearing of the appeals held on the 31 January 2024). The claimant explained that he had more evidence that he wished to put before the Tribunal and wanted more time to argue his case before the Tribunal. The Tribunal refused that application, with brief reasons. It explained that the claimant had had his opportunity to present his case at the oral hearing on 31 January 2024, and that it would be unfair to HMTC to prolong matters further, the hearing “having closed on the basis that the evidence had been presented” (see paragraph [12] of the decision notice in respect of the FtT Decision.

The Tribunal had broad case management powers under its procedure rules. The claimant had had ample opportunity to provide the evidence he relied upon and to make written submissions in advance of the hearing of his appeals. At his hearing he had an opportunity to make oral arguments and to make applications.

To borrow a phrase used by Lewison LJ, “The trial is not a dress rehearsal. It is the first and last night of the show” (Fage UK Ltd v Chobani UK Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 5 at [114]. The time for the claimant to submit his evidence and to make his arguments was before, not after, the hearing. The Tribunal was entitled to refuse the claimant’s application for a “continuation hearing” for the reasons it gave.