ST v HMRC

Where a substantial volume of evidence is served shortly before a tribunal hearing, the tribunal must actively consider whether an adjournment is required to secure a fair hearing. The overriding objective requires the tribunal to balance avoiding delay with enabling parties to participate fully. A self-represented party’s failure to request an adjournment is relevant, but is not decisive. The tribunal should enquire into the party’s ability to read, access and understand the material, particularly where the hearing is conducted remotely and the evidence is disorganised or contradictory. A failure to undertake that assessment may amount to an error of law.

The appellant challenged two HMRC tax-credit decisions concerning the 2017–2018 and 2018–2019 tax years. The First-tier Tribunal concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over the first decision because mandatory reconsideration had not been sought within the statutory time limit. It rejected the challenge to the second decision on the basis that the appellant had made a joint claim.

HMRC had served a further bundle of approximately 579 pages on the day before the First-tier Tribunal hearing. The appellant argued that she had insufficient time to examine it and that relevant material might establish a timely request for mandatory reconsideration. The central issue was whether the First-tier Tribunal had conducted a fair hearing before determining the appeals.

1. Appeal allowed. The First-tier Tribunal’s decision involved an error of law and was set aside under section 12(2)(a) and (b)(i) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. The case was remitted for rehearing by a differently constituted panel.
2. The service of a 579-page bundle on the day before the hearing should have triggered active consideration of whether the proceedings should be adjourned. The overriding objective required the First-tier Tribunal to avoid delay only so far as compatible with proper consideration of the issues, and to ensure, so far as practicable, that the parties could participate fully.
3. The appellant’s failure to request an adjournment was a relevant factor, but was not decisive. A self-represented party may feel pressured or reluctant to seek an adjournment, or may wish the case to be decided despite inadequate preparation. The absence of a request did not establish that a fair hearing could proceed.
4. The First-tier Tribunal should have asked how much of the new material the appellant had read, how she was accessing it, and whether she could use it effectively during a telephone hearing. It should also have considered the disorganised, contradictory and misleading nature of HMRC’s earlier paperwork and the resulting need for time to cross-refer documents.
5. The additional material identified by the appellant might have affected whether she had requested mandatory reconsideration within the statutory period and therefore whether the First-tier Tribunal had jurisdiction over the first decision. Because that was a material error, all matters relating to both decisions were remitted for reconsideration. The Upper Tribunal made no further findings of fact.

• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): The First-tier Tribunal decision dated 5 January 2023 was set aside for error of law and the case was remitted to a differently constituted panel for rehearing.
• First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber): The tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction over the first tax-credit decision because mandatory reconsideration was out of time, and rejected the appeal concerning the second decision.