UT (Tax & Chancery) UT/2023/00099 - [2025] UKUT 00013 (TCC)

Rule 20 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009 (“the FTT Rules”) is headed “Starting appeal proceedings” and it includes the following provisions:

“(1)

A person making or notifying an appeal to the Tribunal under any enactment must start proceedings by sending or delivering a notice of appeal to the Tribunal.

(2)

The notice of appeal must include—

(a)-(c) …

(d)

details of the decision appealed against;

(e)

the result the appellant is seeking; and

(f)

the grounds for making the appeal.

(3)

The appellant must provide with the notice of appeal a copy of any written record of any decision appealed against, and any statement of reasons for that decision, that the appellant has or can reasonably obtain.”

The FTT Rules therefore give no guidance on what is required to be included in grounds of appeal. However, authorities on the Civil Procedure Rules (“CPR”), which apply in the courts, are also relevant, although not determinative (Allpay v HMRC [2018] UKFTT 273 (TC) at [14]. Those authorities do give guidance on the proper basis for drafting grounds of appeal and how the parties and the adjudicating court or tribunal should construe them, so as to deal with the appeal fairly and justly in accordance with the overriding objective.

In McPhilemy v Times Newspapers [1999] 3 All ER 775 at p.792, the purpose of pleadings was set out as being:

“... to mark out the parameters of the case that is being advanced by each party. In particular they are...critical to identify the issues and the extent of the dispute between the parties. What is important is that the pleadings should make clear the general nature of the case of the pleader.”

In making clear the general nature of an appellant’s case, the grounds of appeal to the FTT (Tax Chamber) must, by necessity, include the reasons for making the appeal. They should be clear in stating: i) the nature of the decision by HMRC or other public body (the details of that decision are required to be included in the notice of appeal by Rule 20(2)(d)); and ii) the matters of fact and law which are in issue or which the taxpayer disputes. Rule 20(2)(e) requires that a notice of appeal should include the result the appellant is seeking.

In Rodriguez-Torres at [17], on which Mr Brown relied, the appellant had appealed to the Court of Appeal against a decision of the Immigration and Appeal Tribunal. Moore-Bick LJ gave the only judgment with which Sir Peter Gibson and Auld LJ both agreed. He cautioned as follows:

“…I would strongly deprecate any attempt to construe grounds of appeal in these cases in a narrow and formalistic way. What is important is to ensure that the question of law which the applicant seeks to raise is identified with sufficient clarity to enable both the respondent and the Tribunal to understand what it is.”

The FTT is under a duty to deal with cases fairly and justly by virtue of the overriding objective in Rule 2(1). The duty includes by virtue of Rule 2(2): (a) dealing with the case in ways which are proportionate to the importance of the case, the complexity of the issues, the anticipated costs and the resources of the parties; (b) avoiding unnecessary formality and seeking flexibility in the proceedings; (c) ensuring, so far as practicable, that the parties are able to participate fully in the proceedings. This may mean that in appropriate cases, particularly with unrepresented litigants or those unfamiliar with the procedures, the FTT may demonstrate flexibility in interpreting or refining grounds of appeal provided by appellants or taxpayers. This does not detract from the general principle that appellants should provide grounds of appeal of sufficient clarity to enable both the respondents (typically, HMRC) and the Tribunal to understand their case.

In Rasheed and others v SoS Home Department [2014] EWCA Civ 1493, the Court of Appeal held at [12]:

“Grounds of appeal are intended to be short, succinct documents which identify as briefly as possible the respects in which it is said that the court below (in this case the Upper Tribunal) erred. If drafted as the rules intend and require, they provide the court and the parties with a clear and concise statement of the issues that will arise on the appeal and to which argument will be directed. They are not intended to be a vehicle for describing in general terms the circumstances giving rise to the appeal; nor are they intended to serve as a vehicle for setting out the appellant’s arguments or submissions. That is the function of the skeleton argument...”

Taking those authorities into account in the context of an appeal before the FTT, we find that the grounds: