UT-2024-000123 - [2025] UKUT 00360 (TCC)

The FTT analysed the evidence, both oral and documentary, and made findings of fact at FTT [30] – [33]. The general principles applicable to the exercise of discretion in awarding interest were fully set out from FTT [34] – [46].

The FTT set out its application of the relevant principles and authorities to the facts at FTT [68] – [76]. In doing so, the FTT took into account the evidence of Mr MacMillan, however the FTT took the view (at FTT [75]) that:

“…we consider it more appropriate to use the rate set in the settlement agreement agreed between these parties in respect of the Contents Dispute  The Appellant considered base plus 1.5% an appropriate rate to apply in that context and that was a rate that HMRC considered to be reasonable in the event that there was a further delay in repayment of the overpaid tax in circumstances in which it might have been considered appropriate to apply a penal rate.  We do not consider base plus 1.5% to be a penal rate in the context of the rates that the Appellant was paying at the time (as per the table at paragraph 33(7) the Appellant was paying 2.51% against a base rate of 0.5% i.e. a margin of 2.01%).”

The settlement agreement formed part of the evidence before the FTT, and we consider that it was entitled to have regard to this evidence in reaching its Decision.

In exercising its discretion, we are entirely satisfied that there was no error of law in the FTT’s application of the legislation and relevant authorities to the facts of the present case, as found by the FTT. The Decision reached fell within the FTT’s discretion and we see no basis upon which to interfere with it. Accordingly, we dismiss the Company’s appeal on Ground 3.