From a review of recent costs decisions handed down by the FTT, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the FTT can be guilty of inconsistency and results-led reasoning when exercising its jurisdiction in relation to costs orders. In Wincanton, a costs schedule that the FTT considered non-compliant was disallowed on the basis that it was insufficient to support a summary assessment, while in Harris, a non-compliant schedule was excused even though it was ‘entirely unrealistic’ to suggest that summary assessment be undertaken on the basis of the size of the claim (just over half that in Wincanton). This has created some uncertainty and as a result it may be prudent for taxpayers to provide significantly more detail than has hitherto been customary in their costs applications, and potentially even to make precautionary applications for any defects to be excused.
If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content.
From a review of recent costs decisions handed down by the FTT, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the FTT can be guilty of inconsistency and results-led reasoning when exercising its jurisdiction in relation to costs orders. In Wincanton, a costs schedule that the FTT considered non-compliant was disallowed on the basis that it was insufficient to support a summary assessment, while in Harris, a non-compliant schedule was excused even though it was ‘entirely unrealistic’ to suggest that summary assessment be undertaken on the basis of the size of the claim (just over half that in Wincanton). This has created some uncertainty and as a result it may be prudent for taxpayers to provide significantly more detail than has hitherto been customary in their costs applications, and potentially even to make precautionary applications for any defects to be excused.
If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content.
.tmb-editorspic.jpg?sfvrsn=df04ab27_1)
