Ben Elliott, Quinlan Windle and Sam Glover look at recent developments in litigation focusing on procedural issues such as late appeals (Medpro), burden of proof (Sintra), the jurisdiction of the tribunal, disclosure and duty of candour, use of AI in writing judgments, assessments and penalties (eg Mainpay).

2:07 Court of Appeal judgment in Medpro (late appeals and in particular the Martland approach) – The UT can give guidance and the correct guidance in relation to late appeals is theMartland approach. Higher courts can only interfere with that guidance if there has been an error of law. Has the CA widened the grounds for appeal? Some practical points arising from the decision.

20:50 Sintra - Court of Appeal judgment concerning burden of proof in penalty cases.

25:33 Jurisdiction of tribunal to consider public law points – in particular the recent decision in Morrisons. How to protect the taxpayer's position with parallel judicial review proceedings and statutory appeals.

38:30 Use of AI in writing judgments – How are the courts using AI?

40:45 Disclosure and the duty of candour – Do HMRC have a duty of candour before the FTT? Is it the same duty as in judicial review cases? Is it only HMRC who have a duty of candour in FTT cases?

43:40 Assessments, penalties and causation - Discussion of recent cases and principles laid down in Mainpay, Delphi and Boston Consulting Group.

Citations

Cases

Medpro Healthcare Ltd & Ruppai v HMRC [2026] EWCA Civ 14, [2026] STC 253

Martland v HMRC [2018] UKUT 178 (TCC)

Mitchell v News Group Newspapers [2013] EWCA Civ 1537, [2014] 2 All ER 430

Denton v TH White Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 906, [2015] 1 All ER 880

HMRC v McCarthy & Stone [2014] UKUT 196 (TCC), [2014] STC 973

BPP Holdings Ltd v HMRC [2017] UKSC 55, [2017] 4 All ER 756

Perinpanathan v City of Westminster Magistrates Court [2010] EWCA Civ 40, [2010] 1 WLR 1508

Competition & Market Authority v Flynn Pharma Ltd [2022] UKSC 14, [2023] 1 All ER 97

Price and others v HMRC [2015] UKUT 164 (TCC)

Carbon Six Engineering Ltd v HMRC [2026] UKFTT 177 (TC)

HMRC v Sintra Global [2025] EWCA Civ 1661

Henryk Zeman SP Zoo v HMRC [2021] UKUT 182 (TCC), [2021] STC 1706

Treasures of Brazil v HMRC [2024] UKFTT 929

Caredav Ltd v HMRC [2023] UKUT 179 (TCC)

Chelsea Cloisters v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 205 (TC), [2025] SFTD 1105

Morrison Supermarkets v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1542 (TC)

R (on the application of Archer) v HMRC [2017] EWCA Civ 1962, [2018] STC 38

R (on the application of Weis) v HMRC [2025] EWHC 2479 (Admin), [2025] STC 1659

Cobalt Data Centre 2 LLP v HMRC [2019] UKUT 342 (TCC), [2020] STC 23

Evans v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 01112 (TC)

Jordi Carulla Font v HMRC [2025] EWHC 3057 (Admin), [2025] STC 1935

Nottingham Forest Football Club v HMRC [2024] UKUT 145, [2024] STC 1105

Delphi Derivatives v HMRC [2026] UKUT 21 (TCC), [2026] STC 292

O'Neil & Ors v HMRC [2026] UKUT 13 (TCC), [2026] STC 199

Boston Consulting Group v HMRC [2026] UKUT 25 (TCC), [2026] STC 105

Lands Luo Limited v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1207 (TC)

Jeneruhl Trading Ltd & Another v HMRC [2024] UKFTT 735 (TC)

Legislation

CPR rule 3.9

Rule 28 procedure

s29 Taxes Management Act

s36 Taxes Management Act

Producer: Peter Shevlin

A pod60 production for Pump Court Tax Chambers

Laura Poots KC and Thomas Chacko consider classification and characterisation in VAT cases.

2:00 What is meant by classification and characterisation: when you have identified you have a single supply or a set of multiple supplies, what is that supply? And is the position completely clear following Gray & Farrar?

2:50 The first step is identification of supply - to decide if you have a single or multiple supply - and then one looks at classification. Explanation of the two bases on which a single supply might be identified.

4:56 Is classification the final word on how the supply will be taxed?

Case law and what are the tests?

7:26 Card Protection Plan (CPP) Supplies – principal-ancillary supplies and how they are classified.

8:12 Levob Supplies - In classifying these, different courts have looked at "overarching" or "economic reality" test and the "predominant element" test.

10:45 Gray & Farrar. Court of Appeal has now confirmed that there is a hierarchy of three tests (1) predominant element (2) principal-ancillary (3) overarching supply.

12:00 Predominance test: This is the primary test. Look at economic purpose and the typical customer (qualitative as well as quantitative).

13:55 Principal-ancillary test: a sense check on predominance, but also useful in working out the number of elements.

15:41 Overarching test: can assist in deciding predominance.

17:00 In applying these tests, how do you identify the elements of the supply?

How does this all work in practice?

19:56 HMRC don't seem to view Gray & Farrar as settling the test in every case. What are HMRC's arguments and what are the problems with them?

21:05 HMRC argument 1: Individual elements cannot be singled out.

22:06 HMRC argument 2: subset of Levob supplies where no conceptual room for predominance test. HMRC's reliance on Blackrock and Deutsche Bank.

29:19 A practical example - Story Terrace. Court takes a lot of notice of contractual documentation and marketing descriptions. Potential relevance of online reviews. Demonstration of the importance of considering identification before classification.

CITATIONS

Blackrock Investment Management (UK) Ltd v HMRC [2020] STC 1445

Card Protection Plan Ltd v Customs and Excise Commissioners (Case C-349/96) [1999] STC 270

Finanzamt Frankfurt am Main V-Hochst v Deutsche Bank AG (C-44/11) [2012] STC 1951

HMRC v Gray & Farrar International LLP [2023] STC 327

Levob Verzekeringen BV and another v Staatssecretaris van Financien (C-41/04) [2006] STC 766

Město Žamberk v Finanční ředitelství v Hradci Králové (C-18/12) [2014] STC 1703

Spectrum Community Health CIC v HMRC [2024] STC 1124

Story Terrace v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1554 (TC)

Target Group Ltd v HMRC [2018] UKFTT 226

Talacre Beach Caravan Sales Ltd v Customs and Excise Commissioners (Case C-251/05) [2006] STC 1671

European Commission v France (Case C-94/09) [2012] STC 573

EC v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Case C-274/15) [2017] ECR

Producer: Peter Shevlin

A pod60 production for Pump Court Tax Chambers

David Ewart KC and Laura Ruxandu look at judicial review in relation to tax cases from a procedural as well as substantive perspective.

• when you can bring judicial review in a tax case.
• what to do if you have alternative remedies.
• the jurisdiction of the administrative court.
• procedure for judicial review.

1: 13 The three broad areas in which you can bring judicial review in tax cases.

3:19 Area 1: Extra-statutory rulings - where HMRC resile on an earlier representation personal to the taxpayer. These claims cannot be brought in the tax tribunal. Whilst most of the case law is won by the HMRC, equally there are a lot of cases in which the HMRC accept the taxpayer's challenge.

10:49 Area 2: Where the tax payer has read and relied on a general statement in a published document/statement.

20:53 Area 3: Procedural errors- breach of natural justice, applications for disclosure.

26:42 Judicial review should be viewed as a last resort. It is a residual remedy and is not available if alternative remedies are available.

26:56 The jurisdiction of the administrative court to hear public law arguments such as judicial review.

36:00 Procedure for judicial review. You need to apply for permission. Differences to the Tribunal eg time limits, pre-action protocol. Very important to get early professional advice and evidence to cover the application as well as judicial review (if you get permission).

44:52 Increasing role of Upper Tribunal.

47:41 Difference of appeals to appeals in the Tribunal.

48:00 Strategic importance of threatening judicial review.

Cases

R (Hawarth) v HMRC [2021] UKSC 25

R (Locke) v HMRC [2019] EWCA Civ 1909

R (Refinitiv UK Holdings Ltd) & Anor v HMRC [2023] UKUT 00257 (TCC)

R (Airline Placement Ltd) v HMRC [2023] EWHC 1191 (Admin)

Murphy & Linnett v HMRC [2023] EWCA Civ 497

R (Aozora GMAC Investment Ltd) v HMRC [2019] EWCA Civ 1643

R (Rettig Heating Group Ltd) v HMRC [2025] UKUT 143 (TCC)

R (Archer) v HMRC [2017] EWHC 296 (Admin)

Zeman v HMRC [2021] UKUT 182 (TCC)

Harrison v HMRC [2023] UKUT 00038

Caerdav Ltd v HMRC [2023] UKUT 00179 (TCC)

Reed Employment v HMRC [2015] EWCA Civ 805

MCM v HMRC

Glencore v HMRC [2017] EWCA Civ 1716

Legislation

s50 Taxes Management Act