In Tel-Ka Talk Ltd v HMRC (High Court Costs Office) a company (T) which traded in mobile telephones claimed a repayment of input tax. HMRC initially rejected the claim and T appealed. Following the ECJ decision in Optigen Ltd [2006] STC 419 HMRC withdrew their decision and made the repayment. T applied for costs. HMRC rejected the claim on the grounds that the solicitor who had represented T had being doing so on a contingency basis and that ‘contingency fees are not enforceable in the VAT and Duties Tribunal and indeed are illegal on the grounds of champerty’. Judge Hurst rejected this contention holding that the VAT Tribunal was not a ‘court’ for the purposes of Solicitors Act 1974 and that the contingency fee agreement was lawful. Judge Hurst specifically declined to follow the principles laid down by Buckley LJ in Wallersteiner v Moir (No...
