UT/2023/000055 - [2025] UKUT 00028 (TCC)

There is no dispute between the parties on the principle that where an earlier UT has, as is the case here, decided the interpretation of materially similar legislative provisions, a later UT should in accordance with judicial comity follow that decision unless convinced the earlier decision is wrong. Hoopla makes a number of challenges to the UT’s analysis in Coconut which we now turn to. As we explain below none convince us we should not follow Coconut UT.

A number of the preliminary criticisms Ms Brown makes of the UT’s analysis in Coconut can be rejected at the outset. First, it is argued that the UT did not separately analyse the statutory context for the words “party to” to appreciate that it required something more than the existence of “arrangements”. However it is clear from the UT’s structured discussion, which considered the meaning of “arrangements” and “party to” in discrete sections that it had the need to consider the words “party to” separately and additionally well in mind. Ms Brown also asked us to note that the legislation relevant to the case-law the UT cited (Crossland and Jones v Garnett) regarding arrangements did not include the same “party to” wording. But apart from the high level contextual approach it took from Jones v Garnett (which Hoopla agrees is correct) the UT did not rely on those cases as being relevant to interpretation of the words “party to”.