Upper Tribunal Tax and Chancery Chamber

UT/2023/37 - [2024] UKUT 00229 (TCC)

Fecha: 05-Ago-2024

Procedural matters

Procedural matters

In November 2023, following correspondence between the parties and with the Tribunal, Promethean made an application

(a)

to require amended pleadings;

(b)

for the Authority to provide the names and email addresses of the individuals who had made complaints to the Advertising Standards Authority (“ASA”);

(c)

for permission to serve amended witness statements; and

(d)

for the hearing listed in London for 30 and 31 January 2024 to be vacated and the hearing relisted either at a venue closer to Manchester (where Promethean is based) or conducted by remote video link.

Judge Aleksander refused the application for amended pleadings, but gave consent for the service of supplemental witness statements. He also refused the application that the Authority disclose the names and email addresses of the individuals who had complained to the ASA, on the grounds that the Authority was not relying on these complaints, and therefore the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to require disclosure. Further, Promethean had given no explanation of why these names and email addresses were relevant to the issues under reference.

The grounds for the application to vacate the hearing were that Promethean’s financial resources had been depleted as a consequence of the Authority’s actions, and that it could not afford to pay for travel and accommodation for a hearing in London. Judge Aleksander directed that the hearing should not be vacated. However, having had regard to Promethean’s submissions about the cost of attending a hearing in London and the fact that it was not professionally represented, he directed that Promethean should have the option of either attending the hearing in person in London, or attending by remote video link from HMCTS premises in Manchester. Having conducted a large number of hearings by video link (including hearings in circumstances where the reliability of witness evidence was in dispute), Judge Aleksander was satisfied that – notwithstanding the limitations of video technology – the Tribunal could, and would, give equal respect to individuals attending by video link as it gives to individuals attending in person.

10.

At the hearing, Mr Maddison attended by remote video link from Manchester and gave evidence by video link.

11.

Following the hearing, Mr Maddison made a written application to admit fresh evidence and to make related written submissions. We set out the reasons why we refused this application later in this decision (Footnote: ¹).