Introduction

Hastings Insurance Services Ltd v. Revenue & Customs ([2018] UKFTT 478 (TC)) is a pivotal case adjudicated by the First-tier Tribunal (Tax) in the United Kingdom. This case centers around KPMG LLP's application to access specific documents from HMRC's statement of case and both parties' skeleton arguments following a tribunal decision. Notably, KPMG sought these documents not as a party to the original appeal but as a third party to support their position in a separate, related litigation matter.

The key issues revolved around the tribunal's inherent jurisdiction to grant access to non-parties under the principle of open justice, despite the absence of explicit provisions in the Tribunal Procedure Rules (FTT Rules) for such access. The parties involved included Hastings Insurance Services Limited as the appellant, HMRC as the respondent, and KPMG LLP as the third party seeking access to the documents.

Summary of the Judgment

The tribunal, presided over by Judge Greg Sinfield, examined KPMG's request to inspect HMRC's statement of case and both parties' skeleton arguments. Both the appellant and HMRC objected to this disclosure. However, the tribunal concluded that, based on the inherent jurisdiction to uphold the principle of open justice, KPMG should be permitted access to the specified documents.

Key aspects of the decision included:

• Recognition of the tribunal's inherent jurisdiction to grant document access in the interest of open justice.
• Rejection of HMRC's objections based on taxpayer confidentiality and procedural limitations.
• Application of precedents, notably Aria Technology Limited v HMRC and Cape Intermediate Holdings Ltd v Dring, to substantiate the tribunal's authority to permit access.
• Determination that KPMG had a legitimate interest in accessing the documents for their related litigation.
• Decision to allow KPMG access to the deconsolidated statement of case and both skeleton arguments without redactions, subject to a 60-day delay to preserve appeal rights.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The tribunal extensively referenced key precedents to frame its decision:

• Guardian News and Media Ltd v City of Westminster Magistrates Court [2012] EWCA Civ 420 (Guardian News): Established that the principle of open justice is inherent to all tribunals exercising judicial power, granting them the authority to determine how this principle is applied.
• Aria Technology Limited v HMRC [2018] UKUT 111 (TC) (Aria Technology): Affirmed that tribunals possess inherent jurisdiction to allow non-parties access to documents in line with open justice, even in the absence of explicit procedural rules.
• Cape Intermediate Holdings Ltd v Dring (Asbestos Victims Support Group) [2018] EWCA Civ 1795 (Cape): Clarified the extent of inherent jurisdiction, categorizing documents that non-parties may inspect and outlining factors for tribunals to consider when granting access.
• Law Debenture Trust Corp (Channel Islands) Limited v Lexington Insurance Co-and others [2003] EWHC 2297: Highlighted the importance of exposing judicial processes and documents to public scrutiny to ensure justice is seen to be done.
• Additional references included sections of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) and Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) Rules 2009 (FTT Rules).

Legal Reasoning

The tribunal's legal reasoning was grounded in the principle of open justice, a fundamental constitutional principle ensuring transparency in judicial proceedings. Despite the FTT Rules lacking explicit provisions for non-party access to documents, the tribunal invoked its inherent jurisdiction to permit such access. This was justified by:

• Application of Open Justice: Asserting that tribunals, much like courts, must adhere to open justice principles, ensuring public access to judicial processes and documents.
• Legitimate Interest: Determining that KPMG's request was underpinned by a legitimate interest related to their involvement in related litigation, thus satisfying criteria for access.
• Exclusion of Objections: Countering HMRC's confidentiality claims by referencing statutory provisions that allow tribunals to order disclosures despite HMRC's confidentiality obligations.
• Scope of Document Disclosure: Analyzing which documents could be disclosed without compromising confidentiality or procedural integrity, such as excluding documents from settled or unrelated appeals.

Importantly, the tribunal emphasized that skeleton arguments, even if parts were not utilized during oral submissions, should remain accessible to the public to maintain a comprehensive understanding of the legal arguments presented.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the inherent authority of tribunals to uphold open justice principles, particularly in scenarios where procedural rules are silent. By permitting third-party access to tribunal documents, the decision potentially broadens the scope for transparency in administrative proceedings. Future implications include:

• Enhanced Transparency: Encouraging greater openness in tribunal processes, ensuring that legal arguments and decisions are subject to public scrutiny.
• Precedential Guidance: Serving as a reference point for similar cases where third parties seek access to tribunal documents, balancing confidentiality with transparency.
• Tribunal Practices: Potentially prompting revisions in tribunal procedural rules to explicitly address third-party access, thereby reducing ambiguity in similar future requests.
• Legal Strategy: Influencing how parties approach document disclosure requests in multi-case litigations, particularly in demonstrating legitimate interests.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Conclusion

The Hastings Insurance Services Ltd v Revenue & Customs case is a landmark decision reaffirming the inherent jurisdiction of the First-tier Tribunal to grant non-parties access to procedural documents in the interest of open justice. By permitting KPMG LLP to inspect HMRC's statement of case and skeleton arguments, the tribunal underscored the paramount importance of transparency and public scrutiny in judicial proceedings.

This judgment not only clarifies the scope of inherent jurisdiction within tribunals but also sets a precedent for balancing confidentiality with the need for openness. It emphasizes that even in the absence of explicit procedural rules, tribunals possess the authority to ensure that justice is both done and seen to be done. Consequently, this decision enhances trust in the judicial process, fosters accountability, and provides a clear framework for addressing similar access requests in the future.