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

Hoopla’s case that the FTT erred in its interpretation also relied on the ordinary meaning of the words “party to”. By reference to the Oxford English Dictionary Hoopla submits “party to” connoted “something more than mere involvement, but rather to have a concern in, be a participant in or to be an accessory to those arrangements”. (The OED definition defines a “party” as “[a]n individual concerned in a proceeding”. It then goes on to state that it is “Any of the groups of people constituting a side in a formal proceeding, such as the litigants in a legal action, those who enter into a contract, etc.”. The definition also explains: “With to (formerly also in): a person who is concerned in an action or affair; a participant; an accessory”.) Ms Brown submitted that supported the need for there to be some “formality” before someone could be viewed as a party.

In agreement with Miss Hughes, we do not see how anything in the OED definitions relied on makes good that that there is a requirement for formality before someone is considered a party. Moreover on the facts here there is no issue with formality as Entertainment was in any event a contractual party to the PSA which was accepted to be part of the arrangements. There is also nothing in Hoopla’s points which persuades we should not follow Coconut UT and depart from or elaborate on the “sufficient involvement test.” Coconut UT proposed at [55] of its decision (set out at [23] above).