Judgment summary
This decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber), given by Tribunal Judge Brooks on 09 October 2026, concerns an application by Easytruck Limited (the Company) dated 15 July 2026 for an order under Rule 16 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009 requiring HMRC to disclose certain documents and written statements relating to cheques referred to in a witness statement of HMRC Officer Sarah Greene.
The Tribunal dismissed the Application, finding that the material sought was not relevant to the principal issue in the appeal, namely the Company's entitlement to recover input VAT. The Tribunal also set aside all previous directions and issued a fresh, final set of directions, warning the Company that failure to comply would result in the appeal being struck out without further notice.
Background
The appeal concerns a VAT assessment of £48,499.35 dated 4 February 2020, raised to recover input tax claimed by the Company on the grounds that it had failed to provide evidence of entitlement to deduct that input tax (5). The Company appealed to the Tribunal on 30 April 2021 (5).
The case has a long procedural history marked by repeated postponements and delays. A hearing listed for 27 February 2026 was vacated after HMRC applied for postponement on 12 February 2026, citing the Company's failure to download the hearing bundle, provide an authorities bundle and comply with directions (6). The Company also sought postponement on 25 February 2025, requesting an eight-week stay and a further four weeks to file evidence, together with an 'unless' order barring further evidence if not filed within four weeks (7).
On 26 February 2026, Judge Snelders directed that the hearing be vacated, that the Company provide any further evidence within four weeks (by 26 March 2026), that the Company be barred from relying on evidence not served by that date, and that the hearing be relisted after eight weeks (8). The hearing was relisted for 24 June 2026, but the Company made four further applications (26 March, 2 April, 7 April and 27 April 2026) seeking extensions of time, which the Tribunal, in letters of 13 May 2026, declined to determine because the extended deadline had already passed (9, 10).
On 19 June 2026 the Company applied to postpone the relisted hearing, which HMRC did not oppose despite having already filed witness statements, a hearing bundle and a skeleton argument. The application was granted on 22 June 2026 (11). On 29 June 2026 the Tribunal directed the Company to confirm within 28 days whether it wished to pursue the appeal and to provide a timetable (12). The Company responded on 14 July 2026 with an 'interim response' proposing a timetable for disclosure and a hearing between 3 November 2026 and 3 February 2027 (13). The following day, 15 July 2026, the Company made the Application that is the subject of this decision (14).
Core dispute
The Company sought an order under Rule 16 requiring HMRC, by 4pm on 1 September 2026, to disclose: a copy of an email dated 26 April 2022 referred to at paragraph 65 of HMRC Officer Sarah Greene's witness statement dated 5 November 2025; a written statement confirming when certain queried cheques had been cancelled and either set off to debt on file or applied to the VAT account; a written statement confirming which tax regimes were credited with those cheques and on what date; copies of any tax ledgers showing sums credited from those cheques; and a written statement confirming whether the cheques were credited against the VAT assessment of £48,499.35 dated 4 February 2020 (1).
The Company argued that the documents sought constituted 'basic evidence central to this dispute' and that the information regarding the cheques 'substantially affect the sum of the Assessment' (24). HMRC opposed the Application, contending that the material sought was not relevant to the principal issue in the appeal, which concerned the Company's entitlement to recover VAT and whether it had established that entitlement (25).
Court findings
The Tribunal noted that it had not considered the Company's draft, incomplete copy of its Reply attached to an email of 28 August 2026, both because it was a draft provided only for 'reference purposes' and because it was not provided within the time required by the directions of 27 July 2026 (22).
Applying Rule 16 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009, the Tribunal agreed with HMRC that the material sought was not relevant to the principal issue in the appeal, namely the Company's entitlement to recover VAT (25). The Tribunal further agreed that, even if the Application were granted and all information disclosed, it would not establish the Company's entitlement to the input tax claimed (25). On that basis, the Tribunal found that the information sought was not relevant and would not assist a fair determination of the principal issue (26).
Outcome
The Application was dismissed (26, 29(1)). All previous directions were set aside and replaced with new directions (29(2)). The Company was directed, within 14 days, to send to HMRC any further evidence and witness statements it wished to rely on and to notify the Tribunal accordingly, with an express warning that failure to comply would result in the appeal being struck out without further notice (29(3)-(4)). Further directions were made concerning the provision of dates to avoid for a one-day hearing between 30 November 2026 and 12 March 2027, preparation of a supplementary hearing bundle, skeleton arguments, and a bundle of legislation and authorities (29(5)-(9)). The parties were also given liberty to apply for the directions to be amended, suspended or set aside (29(11)).
Major issues / areas of contention
- Whether the Tribunal should order HMRC to disclose documents and written statements concerning certain cheques under Rule 16 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009.
- Whether the documents sought were relevant to the principal issue in the appeal, namely the Company's entitlement to recover input VAT.
- The effect of the Company's repeated procedural delays and failures to comply with prior directions and deadlines.
- Confusion between the Appellant's separate legal identity as a company and its director acting as litigant in person.
- Whether previous directions barring the Company from relying on late evidence had been superseded by later directions.
- The appropriate final directions to progress a long-delayed appeal, including a strike-out warning for non-compliance.