In the case of Coates & Anor v HMRC [2026] UKFTT 723 (TC), the FTT has dismissed a barring application made by the Appellants against HMRC following HMRC’s failure to follow directions.
PROCEDURE – barring application – deliberate and contumelious non-compliance with directions by HMRC – no prejudice to appellant – application dismissed.
HMRC followed the directions with the exception that they did not serve a copy of its listing information on the Appellant. HMRC admitted that this was a “deliberate and proportionate case management decision, taken in light of the procedural history of this appeal”. HMRC argued that the appeal to date had been subject to “repeated delay, including multiple extension applications and postponements sought by the Appellant over several years” and that it believed that providing its dates to avoid directly to the Appellant at that stage “would have risked further delay by enabling the Appellant to attempt to avoid listing altogether, contrary to the Tribunal’s express intention to progress the appeal without further delay.”
HMRC argued that this had not been a breach of the order, but the FTT disagreed. However, the FTT noted that “It is clear that there is no automatic strike-out/barring order in the directions. Rather it is drafted as a “may” order, giving the Tribunal the discretion to bar HMRC under r.8(3)(a) and r.8(7).” Applying the three-stage process in Denton v TH White Ltd , the FTT judged that:
“First, I identify and assess the seriousness and significance of the breach.
There has been a serious breach. HMRC has deliberately failed to comply with the Tribunal’s directions. If they considered the direction open to abuse, by ‘enabling [RCS] to avoid listing’, they should have applied to vary the directions so that the listing information was provided directly to the Tribunal only. … Whilst HMRC’s conduct is serious, it is hard to characterise it as significant in the context of the appeal. The purpose of listing information is to allow the substantive hearing to be listed. With the information HMRC provided to the Tribunal a substantive hearing has been listed for 26-30 June 2026.
Second, I consider why the default occurred.
As noted, the default occurred because HMRC, through its litigator, deliberately chose to disregard the Tribunal’s directions. That is a very serious matter. I agree with the RCS in their reply that HMRC’s conduct was ‘contumelious’. I note that HMRC have apologised on the day of the hearing. I attach little weight to that, due to the delay in HMRC apologising.
Finally, I consider all the circumstances of the case in the round.
While HMRC’s conduct in this matter is indeed contumelious, RCS have suffered no real prejudice in the conduct of the litigation. Mr Young suggested there was prejudice to the system as a whole when HMRC act in this way – I accept that, but it goes to the seriousness of the breach, it is not prejudicial to RCS in their ability to present their case. … The case has been listed in the same way as it would have been if HMRC had copied RCS in when sending the listing information to the Tribunal. In those circumstances – viewing matters in the round – I find it would be disproportionate to bar HMRC.
The application is therefore dismissed.”
https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukftt/tc/2026/723
Related content from Claritax Books
In Taxpayer Safeguards – Rights and Protections for Individuals, written by the late Robin Williamson and now updated by Keith Gordon, the authors explore the whole spectrum of protections available to individual taxpayers.
