UT/2024/000002 - [2025] UKUT 00188 (TCC)

Under this ground the Appellant argues the FTT gave invoicing a decisive rather than supportive role in view of its conclusions that “the scope of the service was defined by the invoices” ([274]) and that “distinct services were to be identified and invoiced separately” ([276]). It further erred in its analysis as the invoices in fact supported a conclusion of multiple supplies.

There is some overlap here with the errors alleged under Ground 1 and we can therefore deal with this briefly. Both the quoted paragraphs are in the section of the FTT’s decision addressing the contractual analysis. They were merely summarising what the contract said. Both statements are ambiguous as to whether the identification and invoicing indicative of separate services was to be done by itemisation or by separate invoices (i.e. the FTT did not rule out the possibility separate services could appear on one invoice). There is then no mention of invoicing in the subsequent sections and therefore no question of invoicing being given a decisive role. That is a mischaracterisation of the FTT’s reasoning. There was also no misinterpretation of the contract for the reasons already discussed.

Ground 6 therefore fails.