Fengate Developments v Customs & Excise

An unsuccessful appellant will ordinarily be ordered to pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal. Permission for a further appeal may be refused where the case raises no point of general public importance and the proposed arguments principally challenge factual findings. The court may also preserve the lower court’s costs order and direct detailed assessment if the parties cannot agree.

This was an appeal from the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, Revenue Court, before Mr Justice Evans-Lombe. The appellant was not represented, and the respondent did not appear. The judgment records that the appellant challenged findings of fact made by a Tribunal and had lost at every stage of the litigation. The Court of Appeal therefore had to determine the disposition of the appeal, the appropriate costs order, and whether permission should be granted for an appeal to the House of Lords.

1. Disposition. The appeal was dismissed. The substantive reasons were contained in draft judgments made available to counsel, but those reasons are not reproduced in the supplied transcript.
2. Costs. The court rejected the appellant’s submission that it should pay only 50 per cent of the respondent’s costs. The normal order was appropriate: the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent’s costs of and occasioned by the appeal. The High Court costs order in favour of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise remained undisturbed. Detailed assessment was directed if the costs could not be agreed.
3. Further appeal. Permission to appeal to the House of Lords was refused. The court considered the case inappropriate for permission because it raised no point of general public importance. The arguments advanced involved challenges to the Tribunal’s findings of fact, and the appellant had lost at every stage.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Appeal dismissed. The appellant was ordered to pay the respondent’s costs of and occasioned by the appeal and the High Court appeal. Permission to appeal to the House of Lords was refused.
• High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, Revenue Court: Decision under appeal before Mr Justice Evans-Lombe; citation not stated in the judgment.
• Tribunal: The appellant challenged findings of fact made by the Tribunal. Further details are not stated in the judgment.