Haven Healthcare (Southern) Ltd v HM Inspector of Taxes

A statutory time limit requiring a party to require General Commissioners to state a case is mandatory where the regulatory scheme shows that validity depends on compliance. The limitation period runs from the Commissioners’ final determination, which may be made orally at the end of the hearing. The General Commissioners are not required to provide reasons before the final determination is made for this purpose. Later statutory interpretation authority concerning mandatory and directory requirements does not alter that conclusion where earlier decisions applied the same substantive approach. A request made outside the prescribed period is invalid, leaving the High Court without jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.

The appellant sought to appeal to the High Court from a decision of the General Commissioners concerning postponement of a tax assessment. The Commissioners made their final determination orally on 30 July 2004 and sent written notice on 2 August 2004. The appellant requested a stated case by fax on 30 August 2004.

The respondent applied to strike out the appeal, contending that the request was outside the 30-day period in regulation 20(1) of the General Commissioners (Jurisdiction and Procedure) Regulations. The issues were whether the final determination was made on 30 July or 2 August, and whether non-compliance invalidated the request.

1. Final determination. The Commissioners’ final determination was made on 30 July 2004, when it was given at the end of the hearing. Under regulations 16(2) and 16(4) of the General Commissioners (Jurisdiction and Procedure) Regulations, the later notice did not postpone the date of determination.
2. The General Commissioners’ regulations impose no express requirement that reasons accompany the final determination. The distinction from the Special Commissioners’ regulations was deliberate. Accordingly, the reasoning in English v Emery Reimbold & Strick Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 605 did not require a different result. In any event, the evidence showed that reasons had been given orally on 30 July.
3. Effect of lateness. The 30-day period in regulation 20(1) was mandatory. The authorities concerning that provision and its predecessors, including R v General Commissioners ex parte Thomson (1928) 14 TC 313, R v General Commissioners ex parte Clarke [1974] QB 220, Nicholson v CIR (1974) 50 TC 287 and Petch v Gurney (HMIT) [1994] STC 689, established that a late request was invalid and had no legal effect.
4. The approach in Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355 and R v Soneji [2005] 3 WLR 303 did not change the result. The earlier authorities had applied the relevant question of statutory purpose and consequences of non-compliance. The scheme of the Regulations also expressly identified circumstances in which time could be relaxed and irregularities would not invalidate proceedings.
5. Neither regulation 24 nor article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights assisted the appellant. The late request was invalid, and the High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. The respondent’s application was granted and the appeal was struck out.

The judgment does not state a prior appellate decision. It concerns an appeal to the High Court from the General Commissioners, but the appeal was struck out for want of jurisdiction.