Report comment

Para 39 of the judgment reads: "I found the approach of HMRC to compliance to be disturbing. At times it came close to arguing that HMRC, as a State agency, should be treated like a litigant in person and that the constraints of austerity on an agency like the HMRC should in some way excuse unacceptable behaviour. I remind HMRC that even in the tribunals where the flexibility of process is a hallmark of the delivery of specialist justice, a litigant in person is expected to comply with rules and orders and a State party should neither expect to nor work on the basis that it has some preferred status – it does not."

I appreciate the point made by Anon at 9.51am, but this was not a case of HMRC simply helping "the tribunal to reach a decision by putting forward arguments about what the law actually is." It was a dispute between HMRC and BPP Holdings whether certain practices of BPP gave rise to a tax charge. I also appreciate the point made by Anon at 2.29pm, and I agree that failings of the sort made by HMRC can be made by lawyers in private practice.

The main point of principle from the judgment is that the Government is not exempt from following the rules, or avoiding the possible consequences if the procedural rules are not followed. It is not to be treated differently from any other litigant. That is surely a good thing? Allowing the Government more favourable treatment than other litigants would be wrong in principle, and dangerous in effect.