Scott Brothers Ltd v Revenue and Customs [2026] UKUT 259 (TCC) (07 July 2026)

Executive summary

The Upper Tribunal considered Scott Brothers Limited’s renewed application for permission to appeal against the First-tier Tribunal’s refusal to reinstate a withdrawn landfill tax appeal. It held that the First-tier Tribunal had not erred in law and that its refusal to reinstate the appeal was not irrational or perverse, so permission to appeal was refused.

Key points

• Parties: Scott Brothers Limited v The Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs.
• Underlying dispute concerned HMRC assessments for landfill tax of £425,092 and a wrongdoing penalty of £148,782.20.
• The appeal had been withdrawn orally during the FTT hearing, and the company sought reinstatement within the tribunal’s stated 28-day period.
• The FTT applied a balancing exercise: reasons for withdrawal, prejudice to both sides, and the merits so far as conveniently and proportionately ascertainable.
• The Upper Tribunal held the challenge had to meet the high threshold for interfering with a discretionary case-management decision and found no material error of law.
• No sanctions or export-control issue appears on the face of the decision; the case is about tax appeal reinstatement and procedural discretion.

Why it matters

This is a procedural decision showing how strictly UK tribunals may police attempts to revive withdrawn tax appeals, especially where the tribunal sees evidential prejudice to HMRC. For sanctions and national-security audiences, it is mainly relevant as an indicator of judicial deference to case-management discretion rather than as a substantive sanctions or export-control precedent.

Implications

For compliance and litigation strategy, the decision underscores that once an appeal is withdrawn, reinstatement is discretionary and hard to overturn on appeal unless there is a clear legal misdirection, irrationality, or failure to weigh relevant factors. Parties facing HMRC litigation should treat withdrawal as a high-risk procedural step and be prepared to show concrete reasons for reinstatement, limited prejudice, and arguable merits at the earliest stage.