L Rowland & Co (Retail) Ltd v Revenue and Customs (PROCEDURE - case management decision - directions requiring additional evidence from witnesses and further and better particulars - witness summonses of its own initiative - FTT's jurisdiction to make the directions - proper exercise of case management discretion) [2026] UKUT 130 (TCC) (19 March 2026)

Executive summary

The Upper Tribunal allowed Rowlands’ appeal against a First-tier Tribunal case management decision in a tax/NIC dispute about the employment status of approximately 1,400 locum pharmacists. The FTT had directed that each party identify sample locum witnesses, contemplated witness summonses on its own initiative, and ordered HMRC to provide further and better particulars on the employment-status issue; the UT held the FTT had not exercised its case management discretion properly.

Key points

• Parties: L Rowland & Co (Retail) Ltd challenged HMRC assessments and decisions relating to PAYE income tax and NIC for 2015/16 to 2017/18.
• Core issue: whether locum pharmacists were self-employed, as Rowlands contended, or employees, as HMRC contended.
• FTT directions: sample locum witnesses were to be selected, with possible witness summonses issued by the Tribunal, and HMRC had to provide further and better particulars on the Ready Mixed Concrete third-stage inquiry.
• UT outcome: appeal allowed; the UT found error in the FTT’s case management decision and discretion.
• Reasoning focus: the FTT considered limited locum evidence insufficient for a fair and just hearing, but the UT held that was not a proper basis for the directions made.
• Sanctions/export-control angle: none apparent on the face of the decision; the relevance is procedural, not sanctions-specific.

Why it matters

This decision is relevant to enforcement-heavy disputes because it shows the UT policing the limits of tribunal-driven evidence-gathering and pleadings management. For sanctions or national-security matters, the transferable point is that a tribunal cannot simply substitute its own preferred evidential architecture for the parties’ case if that exceeds proper case-management powers.

Implications

For compliance and litigation strategy, the case underscores that regulated parties can challenge tribunal directions that effectively compel a witness-selection framework or front-load detailed particulars before the opponent has completed its evidential case. It also signals that in complex status-based disputes, decision-makers must tie case-management interventions closely to express procedural powers and the overriding objective, rather than treating broad fairness concerns as standalone authority.