![UT/2022/000070 - [2024] UKUT 00364 (TCC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_ICfrj4g.png){kind=logo}
Introduction and background
Introduction and background
In a decision released on 11 January 2024 (the “ Decision”), the Upper Tribunal allowed an appeal by the Appellants (“HMRC”) against a case management direction issued by the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (the “FTT”) on 15 September 2021. That direction was that “preliminary proceedings in this matter shall be heard in private”. The reference to “this matter” was to the Taxpayer’s substantive appeal against the denial by HMRC of certain tax deductions which he had claimed.
The Decision set aside the relevant FTT direction. At [62]-[64] of the Decision, the position regarding anonymisation of the Decision was set out as follows:
ANONYMISATION OF THIS DECISION
In their skeleton arguments, the parties set out their respective positions as to when and whether we should anonymise this decision, and if so on what terms. In advance of the hearing, we sought comments from counsel for each party on the terms of a draft of our proposed decision in this respect. We have repeated that exercise in sending each party an embargoed draft of this decision. We are grateful to counsel for confirming their agreement to the approach which follows, which we consider is consistent with the case-law discussed above relating to anonymisation of decisions on appeals against privacy or anonymity orders.
The appeal by HMRC having been allowed, this decision will initially be published in anonymised form. Thereafter:
The decision will remain in anonymised form if permission to appeal the decision is granted by either this Tribunal or the Court of Appeal, subject to paragraph (2).
If (i) time for applying to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal expires without any such application having been made, or (ii) both the Tribunal and the Court of Appeal refuse permission to appeal, or (iii) the onward appeal(s) (if any) are finally determined against the Taxpayer, then the decision will be republished in unanonymised form on the expiry of two weeks after the occurrence of (i), (ii) or (iii), as relevant, subject to any further application that may be made to the Tribunal by the parties during that two-week period.
The parties have liberty to apply for further directions.
On 10 February 2024, the Taxpayer applied to the Upper Tribunal for permission to appeal the Decision and at the same time applied for directions as follows:
If the Respondent withdraws his appeal to the FTT within 3 months of the date of this direction (and notifies the Upper Tribunal that he has done so), these Upper Tribunal proceedings will remain anonymised.
Determination by the Upper Tribunal of the Respondent’s application for permission to appeal is stayed pending the Upper Tribunal’s determination of the application in §1.2.
If the application in §1.2 is granted, determination of the Respondent’s application for permission to appeal is stayed until the end of the 3-month period referred to in §1.2.
The Upper Tribunal refused those directions, and also refused the application for permission to appeal. No application for permission was made to the Court of Appeal.
On 9 April 2024, The Taxpayer made an application to the Upper Tribunal “to continue anonymity” (the “Anonymity Application”). The direction sought by the Anonymity Application is “that these Upper Tribunal proceedings and the decision of 11 January 2024 will remain anonymised”. The Anonymity Application stated that the Taxpayer had decided to withdraw his substantive appeal to the FTT and “in those circumstances he ought to be permitted to retain the existing anonymity”.
On 8 October 2024, the Taxpayer notified the FTT that he was withdrawing his substantive appeal.
HMRC opposed the Anonymity Application and continue to oppose it following withdrawal of the substantive appeal.
The Anonymity Application is also opposed by Times Media Limited and News Group Newspapers Ltd (together “NGN”), and PA Media and Tax Policy Associates Limited (together the “Third Parties”). The Third Parties have supplied written submissions, which we have taken into account in our decision.
We directed in advance of the hearing to determine the Anonymity Application that the Tribunal would also consider the application made by NGN for disclosure of various documents (the “Disclosure Application”).
We are grateful to all Counsel for their clear and helpful submissions.