In the case of Cristini v HMRC [2026] UKFTT 650 (TC), the FTT has allowed an application by HMRC that further and better particulars of the Appellant’s grounds of appeal were needed.
VALUE ADDED TAX – appeal submitted to Tribunal – application by HMRC for further and better particulars of Appellant’s grounds of appeal – opposed by Appellant on basis of earlier delay in proceedings – whether application should be allowed – yes
The FTT summarised the position as follows:
“In her current grounds, the Appellant states that HMRC have:
– ignored fundamental principles; and
– misrepresented the true facts.
However, the Appellant does not explain what those fundamental principles are, or how taking those principles into account would lead to a conclusion that is different from the conclusion HMRC have reached. The Appellant also does not state which facts have been misrepresented or what she believes the true facts to be, or how those facts would lead to a different conclusion.
I agree with Judge Redston comments in Rapid Brickwork that HMRC should not be expected to comb through previous correspondence to understand which grounds an appellant is relying upon before the Tribunal. Nevertheless, I consider it can be appropriate for commentary in a covering letter, sent with a Notice of Appeal, to be considered as supplementing otherwise sparse grounds of appeal. Here, in his covering letter, the Appellant’s agent states that:
– the figures used by HMRC are fundamentally flawed.
However, the agent does not explain which figures used by HMRC are incorrect, what he considers the correct figures to be, or how using the correct figures would affect the assessments raised by HMRC.
I conclude that HMRC currently cannot know from the pleaded grounds whether the Appellant agrees with some, all or any the facts HMRC have presented, or whether the Appellant agrees on the relevance of some, all or any of the legislation and case-law relied upon by HMRC. The Appellant has failed to specify in sufficient detail any basis on which she considers HMRC’s decision to be incorrect – it follows that HMRC cannot know the Appellant’s case.”
The Appellant had argued that HMRC’s request for further particulars should be dismissed as it was part of deliberate ongoing stalling tactics, but the FTT disagreed noting that the case had been unable to progress while the issue of whether the outstanding VAT would be paid or a hardship application was granted was resolved. HMRC had also acted reasonably in requesting a stay while the similar United Carpets case was resolved.
The FTT concluded that:
“I do not consider that HMRC can fairly be accused of failing to bring this issue to the Appellant’s attention at the earliest opportunity.
Moreover, even if the Appellant was justified in criticising HMRC for delay, that would not remedy the deficiencies in her own pleadings. Delay on the part of HMRC would not be a good reason to refuse HMRC’s application for a direction that further and better particulars be provided when the grounds in question are insufficient. …
… For the reasons set out above, I agree with HMRC that further and better particulars are required, and so HMRC’s application is allowed. Directions are issued separately requiring appropriate grounds of appeal to be provided (and seeking clarification of an unrelated point) so that this appeal can progress.”
https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukftt/tc/2026/650
Related content from Claritax Books
In Tax Appeals – Law and Practice at the FTT, tax barrister Keith Gordon analyses some 500 precedents to show how the FTT rules are applied in practice, and how taxpayers may use the tribunal system for appealing against tax decisions.
