[2024] UKUT 00436 (TCC)

‘Bundles used at the Hearing

In relation to the bundles used at the hearing, I can confirm that two Documents bundles were electronically provided to the Tribunal and used at the hearing. The first bundle (the ‘Core Bundle’) contains 758 pages of documents, most of which would have been exchanged between the parties in the course of the enquiry. The second bundle (HMRC's ‘Witness Bundle’) contains Officer Tailor’s witness statement and exhibits of 465 pages, which would have been exchanged between the parties prior to the hearing.

Mr Hague’s latest communication has referred to pagination not matching up. I infer that Mr Hague is in physical possession of a version of the hearing bundle, albeit not of the version as finally produced electronically to the Tribunal and used at the hearing. It is likely that Mr Hague’s single paper bundle is a version that was subsequently re-made into two separate electronic bundles, with the final Core Bundle being ‘reduced’ by extracting the HMRC’s witness statement and exhibits into a separate electronic bundle. (It has been noted that the Core Bundle is labelled as ‘Reduced’ during lodgement, and the need to separate the original bundle into two separate bundles can be due to the overall file size, as the Tribunal’s Documents Upload Centre may have a limit to the size of each PDF file that can be uploaded.)

Implications for the pending costs application

I am aware of a costs application against Mr Hague that is currently pending. The fact that HMRC had made several unsuccessful attempts at their own expense for the delivery of the Core and Witness Bundles to Mr Hague (as detailed in their response of 28 March 2024) will be a factor to be taken into account in the costs application. A party could have made all reasonable efforts to deliver the documents bundles, but if the intended recipient has made no reasonable effort to facilitate successful delivery, such as by notifying an alternative time for delivery, or by collecting in person from the delivery office, then the sending party cannot be found to be wanting in meeting its obligations.

If, and to whatever extent, Mr Hague is going to apply for permission to appeal on the ground that he did not have the correct version of the Bundles for the hearing, HMRC will be afforded the opportunity to make representations in that respect. The factual matrix as concerns the delivery of bundles are not part of the evidence heard at the substantive hearing. The representations to be made by HMRC in this regard will most likely be incorporated into their costs application against the appellant.’