Petch v Gurney (Inspector of Taxes)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 05 November 1992 |
| Date | 05 November 1992 |
| Court | Chancery Division |
Chancery Division.
Harman J.
The taxpayer appeared in person.
Launcelot Henderson (instructed by the Solicitor of Inland Revenue) for the Crown.
The following cases were referred to in the judgment:
Valleybright Ltd (in voluntary liquidation) v Richardson (HMIT)TAXTAX(1984) 58 TC 290; [1985] BTC 31
Brassington v Guthrie (HMIT) TAX[1992] BTC 34
Income tax - Appeal to High Court from special commissioner - Case stated not transmitted to High Court within 30 days of receipt by taxpayer - Whether court had jurisdiction to hear appeal -Taxes Management Act 1970 section 56 subsec-or-para (4)Taxes Management Act 1970, sec. 56(4).
This was an application by the Revenue to strike out the taxpayer's appeal by way of case stated from the determination of a special commissioner, against which both parties had appealed, on the ground that the requirement of the Taxes Management Act 1970 section 56 subsec-or-para (4)Taxes Management Act 1970, sec. 56(4) that the case should be transmitted to the High Court within 30 days of receipt by the appellant was not complied with. The taxpayer also made an application under O. 18, r. 19 of the Rules of the Supreme Court to strike out the Revenue's appeal on the grounds that it "disclosed no reasonable cause of action", was "scandalous and vexatious" and "otherwise an abuse of the process of the court".
Held, granting the application to strike out the taxpayer's appeal and refusing the application to strike out the Revenue's appeal.
1. The time limit of 30 days allowed for transmitting a case stated to the High Court was mandatory and if it was not complied with the court had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Valleybright Ltd (in voluntary liquidation) v Richardson (HMIT) TAX[1985] BTC 31 and Brassington v Guthrie (HMIT) TAX[1992] BTC 34 followed.
2. Although not impossible, it was extremely unlikely that a case stated would disclose no reasonable cause of action. There must by definition have been an argument before the appeal commissioners and no case where an appeal had been struck out on such grounds could be cited.
Harman J: I have before me a motion by notice dated 5 October 1992 in a matter listed as "CH 1991 P No. 472" in which Mr Raymond John Petch ("the taxpayer") is the appellant and Mr Gurney, HM Inspector of Taxes, is the respondent. The motion seeks an order that the action (identified as an appeal brought by way of case stated underTaxes Management Act 1970 section 56sec. 56 of theTaxes Management Act 1970 by the taxpayer against the determination of Mr Everett sitting as a single special commissioner) be struck out on the grounds that the taxpayer failed to transmit the case when stated and signed by the special commissioner to the High Court within 30 days of receiving the same as required by Taxes Management Act 1970 section 56 subsec-or-para (4)sec. 56(4) of the 1970 Act.
The point raised is one going entirely to jurisdiction. It is a bare point of law which requires no inquiry into the merits of the matter and turns upon the true interpretation and meaning of Taxes Management Act 1970 section 56 subsec-or-para (4)sec. 56(4) of the Taxes Management Act 1970.
Very briefly, the facts are that the taxpayer appealed against two assessments to tax made upon him in respect of moneys received from HM Paymaster-General or/and the Department of Health and Social Security consequent upon the determination of his employment by that department. As is quite clear, the taxpayer has suffered from serious mental disturbance. His career, which I understand had theretofore been brilliant, was very sadly cut short by that disturbance.
The appeals against the assessment were heard by the special commissioner. At the conclusion of the hearings on 13 August 1990 both parties, that is to say, the inspector of taxes by the Solicitor of Inland Revenue on one side and the taxpayer in person on the other, expressed their dissatisfaction with the commissioner's decision. In due course each side within 30 days of that expression of dissatisfaction required a statement of case raising the point of law which the commissioner had understood was alleged to be applicable to the decision. Each side paid the relevant fee.
The commissioner submitted draft cases to the parties. They made comments upon them and on 6 December 1990 the commissioner signed the case stated pursuant to the taxpayer's requirement. The taxpayer entirely agrees that factually that document came into his hands, to use a neutral phrase, on 8 December 1990.
The days that followed were occupied by letters from the taxpayer including a letter of 31 December 1990 to the chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue asking for a 30-day extension of time. That...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Petch v Gurney (Inspector of Taxes)
...v Richardson (HMIT)TAXTAX(1984) 58 TC 290; [1985] BTC 31 These were appeals by the taxpayer against an order made by Harman J ([1992] BTC 620). By one order the judge granted an application by the Revenue to strike out the taxpayer's appeal on the ground that he had not transmitted the case......
-
Robinson v Secretary of State for Northern Ireland
... ... are of any relevance I consider that the statement of Millett LJ in Petch v Gurney [1994] 3 All ER 731 , 738b-f assists the appellant: ... ...
-
WY v Law Society of Scotland
...v Assessor for FifeSC 1963 SC 197; 1963 SLT 329 Petch v Gurney (HM Inspector of Taxes)UNKUNKTAX [1994] 3 All ER 731; [1994] STC 689; 66 TC 743 R v Weir (HM Inspector of Taxes)WLRUNKUNKUNK [2001] 1 WLR 421; [2001] 2 All ER 216; [2001] 2 Cr App R 9; [2001] Crim LR 656 Simpson v Assessor for S......
-
J. A. J. I. S. v N. L. A
...stipulations as to time directly at page 48 of the 5 th ed. He reproduces a passage from the judgment of Millett LJ in Fetch v. Gurney (Inspector of Taxes) [1994] 3 All ER 731, 738. That passage reads: Where statute requires an act to be done in a particular manner, it may be possible to r......