Javaid v Revenue and Customs [2026] UKUT 261 (TCC) (08 July 2026)

Executive summary

The Upper Tribunal considered Mr Javaid’s application for permission to appeal against the FTT’s refusal to set aside HMRC’s Personal Liability Notices, which had attributed 100% of three Schedule 24 Finance Act 2007 penalties to him. The new appeal point argued that paragraph 19 should be read compatibly with A1P1 ECHR so that the attributed amount was proportionate, but the Tribunal held the point could not be determined on the existing facts and refused permission.

Key points

• Applicant: Kashif Javaid; respondent: HMRC; context was Personal Liability Notices under paragraph 19 of Schedule 24 Finance Act 2007.
• FTT had upheld three PLNs totalling £3,212,815, attributing company VAT penalty liabilities to Mr Javaid as an officer responsible for deliberate inaccuracies.
• Proposed ground relied on HRA 1998 s3 and A1P1 ECHR, arguing an attribution cap should be read into paragraph 19 and that the proportionate amount was nil.
• Upper Tribunal applied Singh v Dass and held the proportionality challenge was fact-sensitive and would have required evidence and findings not made below, especially on Mr Javaid’s personal finances and the balance of interests.
• Permission to appeal was refused because the new point could not properly be raised on the existing record.
• No sanctions or export-control issue appeared in the decision; the case concerned domestic tax penalty enforcement and personal liability.

Why it matters

The decision shows the Upper Tribunal’s reluctance to let litigants reframe penalty exposure as a human-rights proportionality challenge on appeal without a developed factual record. For enforcement-facing actors, it reinforces that personal-liability and penalty attribution disputes will be driven by evidence at first instance, which affects litigation strategy and settlement leverage.

Implications

Compliance and enforcement teams can rely on this as support for resisting late-raised proportionality arguments where the factual basis was not explored below. For taxpayers and advisers, the case signals that any A1P1-based challenge to personal attribution needs to be pleaded and evidenced early, including personal means, business profitability, and the marginal deterrent effect of the penalty regime.