Judgment summary
This decision concerns case management of a group of related appeals before the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) involving Mr Simon Keswick and various trusts, all turning on questions of domicile for tax purposes (3), (4).
The appeals included Personal Tax Appeals by Mr Keswick against closure notices for seven tax years, the Bermuda Trust Appeal, the HK Trust Appeal concerning his brother Sir Henry Keswick, and five Guernsey Trust Appeals, all premised on HMRC's determination that Mr Keswick (or in one case his brother) was domiciled in England and Wales when the relevant trusts were settled (3).
Separately, judicial review proceedings had been commenced by Mr Keswick and Butterfield Trust (Guernsey) Limited against HMRC's decision to issue the notices of determination, based on an alleged legitimate expectation arising from HMRC's prior representations (5), (6).
The Tribunal considered four applications made by the Appellants: the Joinder Application, the Allocation Application, the Stay Application, and the Alternative Application (10). HMRC consented to the Joinder and Allocation Applications but opposed the Stay and Alternative Applications (11).
The Tribunal allowed the Joinder Application and the Allocation Application, but dismissed the Stay Application and the Alternative Application (31).
Background
By letter of 9 April 2026, following correspondence from the parties regarding various matters including applications concerning the appeals, the Tribunal issued directions to list a case management hearing (1). The hearing was held remotely by video and in public, with prior notice published on the gov.uk website (1), (2).
The Tax Appeals before the Tribunal comprised the Personal Tax Appeals (Mr Keswick's appeals against closure notices for seven tax years from 2016-17 to 2023-24, excluding 2017-2018), the Bermuda Trust Appeal (concerning the Bairns No.1 Trust settled by Mr Keswick on 24 October 1968), the HK Trust Appeal (concerning the Bairns No.2 Trust settled by Sir Henry Keswick on 24 October 1968), and the Guernsey Trust Appeals (concerning five trusts settled by Mr Keswick between 1977 and 1996: the Cezanne Trust, the Unity Trust, the Neptune Trust, the Duet Trust, and the Second Aigburth Trust) (3).
To determine the Personal Tax Appeals, the Bermuda Trust Appeal, and the Guernsey Trust Appeals, the Tribunal will need to hear evidence on Mr Keswick's domicile, including whether his father Sir William Keswick acquired a domicile of choice in England and Wales prior to May 1963 (4).
Separately, on 16 December 2025, Mr Keswick and Butterfield Trust (Guernsey) Limited sought permission to bring judicial review proceedings against HMRC's decision to issue the notices of determination relating to the Guernsey Trust Appeals, on the basis that HMRC's representations over a long period gave rise to a legitimate expectation that HMRC could not lawfully assert Mr Keswick was UK domiciled when he settled those trusts (5), (6). HMRC filed Summary Grounds of defence on 23 January 2026, opposing permission (7). At the date of the case management hearing, the permission application had been referred to a judge but not yet determined (9).
Core dispute
The dispute concerned four case management applications made by the Appellants: the Joinder Application (to join the Personal Tax Appeals, the Bermuda Trust Appeal, and the Guernsey Trust Appeals, but not the HK Trust Appeal), the Allocation Application (to allocate the Tax Appeals to the complex category), the Stay Application (to stay the Personal Tax Appeals, the Bermuda Trust Appeal, and the Guernsey Trust Appeals behind the judicial review proceedings), and the Alternative Application (alternatively, to consolidate the Tax Appeals and the judicial review proceedings and list both before a single judge sitting as a Judge of the Tribunal and a Judge of the High Court) (10).
HMRC consented to the Joinder and Allocation Applications but objected to the Stay and Alternative Applications (11).
On the Stay Application, the Appellants argued, relying on R (on the application of Davies and another) v HMRC and R (on the application of Veolia ES Landfill and others) v HMRC, that the judicial review proceedings should be determined first because a Tribunal decision on domicile might damage the legitimate expectation claim, that no facts could be more conveniently found by the Tribunal than the Administrative Court, and that there was no detriment to HMRC (15)-(17). HMRC contended that the Personal Tax Appeals and Bermuda Trust Appeal would need to be determined by the Tribunal regardless of the outcome of the judicial review, and that even if the judicial review succeeded there was no reason to suppose HMRC would withdraw from the other appeals (19).
On the Alternative Application, the Appellants argued that the Tribunal had jurisdiction, via section 6(1)(ze)(d) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2008 and Rule 5(3)(b) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009, to direct that a High Court Judge sit as both a Judge of the First-tier Tribunal and a Judge of the High Court to hear the Tax Appeals and the judicial review proceedings together (26), (27).
Court findings
The Tribunal found that the Joinder and Allocation Applications should be allowed, for the reasons advanced by the Appellants, as HMRC consented to these (11), (31).
On the Stay Application, the Tribunal held there is no hard and fast rule determining whether tax appeals or judicial review proceedings should proceed first; the appropriate course is determined case by case, with the test being what is required by the interests of justice (13), (14), (22). The Tribunal considered Daniel v HMRC, Houldsworth v HMRC, R (on the application of Lower Mill Estate Ltd) v HMRC, and Athena Capital Fund v Secretariat of the State of the Holy See, finding that the majority of authorities favour tax appeals being heard before judicial review proceedings (20)-(25). The Tribunal held that while Veolia confirms a taxpayer may choose which proceedings to prioritise for its own position, this does not fetter the Tribunal's discretion to determine which proceedings should be heard first (23).
The Tribunal concluded that, given the Personal Tax Appeals and Bermuda Trust Appeal would need to be determined by the Tribunal irrespective of the outcome of the judicial review, and given the overlap of issues and evidence, the Stay Application should be dismissed (24). This conclusion was consistent with the majority of authorities and would avoid the delay that would arise from determining the Tax Appeals only after the judicial review proceedings concluded (25).
On the Alternative Application, the Tribunal held that Rule 5 of the FTT Rules could not assist the Appellants because the FTT Rules only apply to proceedings before the Tribunal, and the judicial review proceedings were not before the Tribunal (28). The Tribunal distinguished Lands Luo Ltd v HMRC as concerning a matter clearly within the Tribunal's jurisdiction, unlike the Alternative Application (29). In the absence of jurisdiction, the Tribunal held there was no alternative but to dismiss the Alternative Application (30).
Outcome
The Tribunal directed that the Joinder Application be allowed, so that the Personal Tax Appeals, the Bermuda Trust Appeal and the Guernsey Trust Appeals would be case managed, proceed together and be heard together by the same Tribunal (31(1)).
The Allocation Application was allowed, with all appeals re-allocated as Complex cases to which Rule 10(1)(c) of the FTT Rules (opt out of costs) applies (31(2)).
The Stay Application was dismissed (31(3)), and the Alternative Application was dismissed (31(4)).
The parties were directed to liaise and use best endeavours to agree case management directions for the further progress of the joined Tax Appeals, and to provide proposed agreed or separate directions within 14 days (31(5)). Any party dissatisfied with the decision has a right to apply for permission to appeal, with any application to be received not later than 56 days after the decision is sent (32).
Major issues / areas of contention
- Whether the Tax Appeals should be stayed behind separate judicial review proceedings concerning an alleged legitimate expectation
- Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to direct that the Tax Appeals and judicial review proceedings be consolidated and heard together before a single judge sitting as both a Tribunal Judge and a High Court Judge
- Whether the Appellants' domicile appeals and the Bermuda, Guernsey and Personal Tax Appeals should be joined and reallocated as Complex cases
- The applicability and interpretation of case law including Davies, Daniel, Veolia, Lower Mill and Athena Capital Fund in determining the order in which overlapping tax appeal and judicial review proceedings should be heard