Reed Personnel Services Plc v Revenue & Customs

Where related tax appeals and judicial review proceedings raise overlapping factual and legal issues, transfer to the Tribunal system may be appropriate if it is just and convenient. The central consideration is effective dispute and case management. The court should consider whether one judge or tribunal system can obtain an informed overview of all relevant issues, including matters outside the Administrative Court’s jurisdiction. A transfer may be made while leaving the receiving tribunal to decide whether proceedings should be stayed, actively managed or returned to the Administrative Court. Costs ordinarily follow the event.

Reed Personnel Services Plc sought transfer of stayed judicial review proceedings concerning dispensations under ITPA and travel expenses paid to temporary workers. Related tax appeals raised issues concerning the contractual relationship between Reed and the workers, the application of section 65 and section 72, and factual communications between Reed, HM Revenue & Customs and the workers.

The Administrative Court had no jurisdiction over the tax appeals. The issue was whether the judicial review proceedings should be transferred to the Upper Tribunal so that the related disputes could be managed together.

1. Transfer. The application was granted. The judicial review proceedings were transferred to the Upper Tribunal for the Tribunal system to give directions and manage the wider dispute.
2. Just and convenient case management. The power under section 31A was discretionary. The relevant question was how best to ensure that the disputes were decided efficiently and on an informed basis. The Administrative Court could not take an adequate overview because the tax appeals lay outside its jurisdiction.
3. Single-system management. It was important, if possible, that one judge or tribunal system should consider all relevant issues. This would permit informed decisions about whether preliminary points should be separated, whether factual issues should be determined first, and whether issues should proceed in tandem.
4. Receiving tribunal’s discretion. The transfer was not intended to steer the Upper Tribunal on the merits or procedure. The receiving judge could decide whether the judicial review proceedings should remain stayed, be actively managed, or be transferred back to the Administrative Court if that proved more convenient.
5. Costs. Reed had succeeded on the transfer application. Costs therefore followed the event and were directed to be assessed.