Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
Costs � s 29 Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 � Tribunal Procedure Rule 10 - Costs incurred before start of proceedings � Relevant behaviour of party
Following a hearing in Norwich on 13 October 2011 the Tribunal issued a decision notice on 11 November 2011 allowing the Applicant�s appeal in part.� By a letter dated 8 December 2011 the Applicant informed the Tribunal that it wished to apply for costs.� By a letter dated 4 January 2012 the Tribunal reminded the Applicant of the requirements of Tribunal Procedure Rule 10 (Orders for Costs) and requested further information, including the grounds for the application.
�The grounds for claiming costs are that HMRC acted unreasonably in applying three default surcharges incorrectly and failed to ascertain the facts of the case despite being made aware of the circumstances by the [Applicant] and its advisors in two letters dated 27 January 2011 and 29 March 2011 respectfully [sic].�
The Tribunal required the Applicant to present a schedule of costs � which was done � and invited representations from the Respondents.� The representations were sent on 17 February 2012 and made three main points.�
(1) First, that the schedule of costs included work done outside the period when proceedings were before the Tribunal and, therefore, not covered by Rule 10:
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.