Bridgecom International Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC

Rule 11(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009 does not require a non-legal representative’s notice to be physically sent by the party. It is sufficient that the party provides independent evidence of authorisation and causes or authorises the notice to be sent.

Where a representative has been duly notified, the Tribunal may serve documents on that representative and assume that the appointment continues until written notification of change. Receipt of notice of allocation to the complex category triggers the 28-day period for opting out of costs shifting under Rule 10(1)(c). A procedural irregularity does not automatically invalidate proceedings and may be waived or remedied under Rule 7.

Bridgecom appealed against the First-tier Tribunal’s costs decision dated 29 April 2021, following the striking out of its appeal. The FTT ordered Bridgecom to pay HMRC’s costs under Rule 10(1)(c), because the proceedings had been allocated to the complex category and no request to opt out of potential costs liability had been made within 28 days.

Bridgecom argued that its accountant, a non-legal representative, had sent the notice of appointment rather than Bridgecom itself. It contended that the appointment was invalid, that notice of allocation could not be served on the accountant, and that the FTT lacked jurisdiction to award costs. The central issue was the construction and effect of Rule 11(2), together with the related notification and procedural provisions.

1. The appeal was dismissed and the FTT’s costs order was confirmed. There was no material error of law in the FTT’s decision.
2. Rule 11(2) distinguishes between legal and non-legal representatives. Its purpose is to require independent evidence that a non-legal representative has been authorised by the party. The rule must be interpreted in context and consistently with the overriding objective in Rule 2(3). A purely literal construction requiring the party personally to transmit the notice could be impossible or unworkable and would not advance that purpose.
3. Rule 11(2) is satisfied where the party signs a notice or authority form identifying the representative and causes or authorises it to be sent to the Tribunal. The signed form showed that Bridgecom had authorised Accura Accountants Limited to act and had caused that authorisation to be notified, even though Accura sent the email.
4. Under Rule 11(4), once due notice of the appointment has been received, the Tribunal must provide documents to the representative and may assume that the representative remains authorised until written notification to the contrary. Accura was therefore the proper recipient of the complex-allocation notice.
5. Rule 10(1)(c) requires notice of allocation before the 28-day opt-out period begins. The Tribunal could not award costs merely because no opt-out request had been made where no allocation notice had been given. On the facts, however, valid notice had been given to Accura and the period had expired without an opt-out request.
6. Alternatively, any breach of Rule 11(2) could properly have been waived under Rule 7. An irregularity does not itself render proceedings or procedural steps void, particularly where the point was raised only opportunistically at the costs stage and no material prejudice was shown.

• Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber): appeal against the First-tier Tribunal’s costs decision dated 29 April 2021 dismissed; the costs order was confirmed.
• First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber): ordered Bridgecom to pay HMRC’s costs under Rule 10(1)(c) after the appeal had been allocated to the complex category and no timely opt-out request had been made.