Admissibility of New Grounds and Evidence in Tribunal Appeals – Bramley Ferry Supplies Ltd v HMRC [2017] UKUT 214 (TCC): Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber)

Introduction

The case of Bramley Ferry Supplies Ltd v. HM Revenue and Customs ([2017] UKUT 214 (TCC)) concerns procedural applications within the context of an appeal against a First-tier Tribunal (FTT) decision. Bramley Ferry Supplies Limited (the Appellant) sought to challenge HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) over the revocation of its Warehousekeepers and Owners of Warehoused Goods Regulations 1999 (WOWGR) licence, which was crucial to its business operations involving duty-suspended alcohol. The key legal issues revolved around the admissibility of new grounds of appeal and the introduction of new evidence after the initial appeal was refused by the FTT for being filed out of time.

Summary of the Judgment

The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) reviewed the Appellant's applications to admit a new ground of appeal and to introduce new evidence. The Appellant contended that the original FTT decision was flawed both in law and fact, arguing that the appeal was actually filed within the allowable time frame and that delays were attributable to their legal advisers, not the Appellant itself.

Upon thorough examination, the Upper Tribunal refused both applications. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of procedural deadlines and highlighted the Appellant's failure to present the new ground and evidence in a timely manner. Additionally, the new evidence did not meet the established criteria for admissibility, as outlined in Ladd v. Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489, particularly lacking in credibility and substantial impact on the case's outcome.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced several key precedents to underpin its reasoning:

Edwards v. Bairstow [1956] AC 14: This case established that courts could overturn factual findings if no properly instructed judicial authority could have reached such conclusions based on the evidence.
Ladd v. Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489: Set out criteria for admitting new evidence, including the inability to obtain evidence with reasonable diligence, the evidence's potential significant influence on the case, and its credibility.
Anglo Irish Asset Finance plc v. Flood and Riddell [2011] EWCA Civ 799: Highlighted the flexibility in admitting new evidence in procedural appeals compared to final judgments.
Reed Employment Plc v. HMRC [2014] UKUT 160: Discussed the persuasive authority of the Ladd v. Marshall criteria in the context of Upper Tribunal proceedings.

Legal Reasoning

The Tribunal's legal reasoning hinged on the strict adherence to procedural rules and the overriding objective of ensuring fairness and justice. The significant delay in introducing a new ground of appeal and new evidence—presented only eight days before the scheduled hearing—was deemed unjustifiable without a compelling reason. Furthermore, the new evidence, primarily the witness statement of Ms. Natalie Wallis, failed to satisfy the Ladd v. Marshall criteria, particularly regarding its timely procurement and substantial impact.

The Tribunal also emphasized that reopening concluded issues undermines the finality of litigation and efficient case management. They underscored that appellate bodies must balance flexibility with the need to prevent iterative proceedings that could delay justice.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the stringent approach appellate tribunals must adopt concerning procedural adherence. It delineates clear boundaries for when new grounds and evidence can be introduced, emphasizing the necessity of timely and credible submissions. Future appellants must ensure that any intended grounds or evidence are presented within the stipulated timelines to avoid similar refusals. Moreover, the case underscores the importance of robust evidence presentation at initial hearings, as failures here can preclude relief on appeal.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Overriding Objective

A fundamental principle in Upper Tribunal proceedings aimed at ensuring cases are handled justly and efficiently. It requires tribunals to consider all aspects of fairness when making decisions.

Admissibility of New Evidence

Refers to whether new information or testimony can be introduced into an ongoing legal case after initial proceedings have concluded. Strict criteria must be met for such evidence to be considered.

Ladd v. Marshall Criteria

A set of three conditions from a precedent case that guide whether new evidence should be allowed in a legal proceeding:

The evidence could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence before.
The evidence would likely have a significant impact on the case's outcome.
The evidence is credible or believable.

Conclusion

The Upper Tribunal’s decision in Bramley Ferry Supplies Ltd v. HMRC underscores the judiciary's commitment to procedural integrity and the finality of tribunal decisions. By denying the Appellant's late applications to introduce new grounds and evidence, the Tribunal reinforced the necessity for timely and comprehensive submissions in legal proceedings. This judgment serves as a critical reminder to practitioners and appellants alike about the importance of adhering to procedural rules and ensuring that all relevant evidence is presented appropriately at the earliest stages of litigation. The case thereby contributes to the broader legal landscape by clarifying the standards for admissibility of new appeals grounds and evidence within tribunal settings.

Admissibility of New Grounds and Evidence in Tribunal Appeals – Bramley Ferry Supplies Ltd v HMRC [2017] UKUT 214 (TCC)