Unreasonable behaviour meaning

Original news Distinctive Care Limited v HMRC [2016] UKFTT 764 (TC) John Hargreaves v HMRC [2016] UKFTT 772 (TC) What are the practical implications of these cases? The lesson from Distinctive Care is that, when handling groups of disputes, advisers must be meticulous and open about the way costs have been incurred. With HMRC’s more recent follower notice and accelerated payment notice powers, this point matters now more than ever. The key takeaway from John Hargreaves was that there is no hard-and-fast sequence for proceedings; the FTT will exercise its case management powers to ensure matters are dealt with fairly and justly, including setting the order of proceedings. The ongoing narrative from Mr Hargreaves’ litigation suggests taxpayers are likely to find it difficult to keep back material from HMRC where that evidence supports an aspect of the taxpayer’s position but also assists HMRC’s case... What was Distinctive Care about? This decision concerned an application in the FTT seeking costs on...

In this issue: Taxes management and litigation Companies and corporation tax International Finance Devolution Energy and environment VAT Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Taxes management and litigation Court of Appeal dismisses DPT judicial review (R (oao Refinitiv Ltd and others) v HMRC) In R (oao Refinitiv Ltd), the Court of Appeal rejected the companies’ appeal against the Upper Tribunal’s (UT) refusal to permit their judicial review claim concerning diverted profits tax (DPT) charging notices. See News Analysis: Court of Appeal dismisses DPT judicial review (Refinitiv Ltd v HMRC). UT finds FTT made errors when setting aside HMRC best judgment assessment (HMRC v Sintra Global) In Sintra Global, the UT overturned the First-tier Tax Tribunal’s (FTT) decision insofar as it addressed a notice issued by HMRC to an individual, rendering him liable for payment of a civil evasion penalty levied...

In this issue: Key developments and horizon scanning Disputes and remedies Easements and covenants Electronic Communications Additional Property Disputes updates LexTalk®Property Disputes: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Key developments and horizon scanning Budget Day 2025 The Government has announced that budget day will be 26 November 2025. See LNB News 03/09/2025 5. Disputes and remedies Upper Tribunal confirms two-stage test for unreasonable behaviour (Coogan v Taheri) The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) (UT) in Coogan v Taheri [2025] UKUT 293 (LC) dismissed an appeal by the tenant appellants against a £70,000 costs order made by the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) (Residential Property) (FTT) under rule 13(1)(b) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013. The appellants maintained the FTT misapplied the first-stage test for unreasonable behaviour, leading to an incorrect finding that the tenants’ conduct was unreasonable; alternatively, they...

Fixed recoverable costs in noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) claims Following recommendations of the Civil Justice Council, fixed recoverable costs for NIHL matters were introduced. The principal provisions are located in: Pre-Action Protocol for Disease and Illness Claims, Annex E Section VIII of CPR 45 Table 15 of CPR PD 45 Annex E of the Pre-Action Protocol for Disease and Illness Claims Scope Annex E to the Pre-Action Protocol for Disease and Illness Claims applies where: the claim concerns NIHL the claim appears suitable for allocation to the fast track the first letter of claim is issued on or after 1 October 2023 Annex E is designed to underpin the fixed recoverable costs regime set out in Section VIII of CPR 45. If there is any inconsistency between the general provisions of the Pre-Action Protocol for Disease and Illness Claims and Annex E, Annex E takes priority. Excluded cases The...

Note: This Practice Note provides focused guidance for proceedings in the Technology and Construction Court (TCC) under CPR 60, CPR PD 60 and the TCC Guide. Because these sit alongside the wider CPR framework, it should be read together with general materials on preparing for and attending trial, including Trial—overview, which itself links to detailed guidance on specific aspects of trial preparation and attendance. Shorter and flexible trials schemes—TCC claims issued on or after 1 October 2015 may fall within, or be appropriate for, one or both schemes under CPR PD 57AB: the shorter trials scheme and the flexible trials scheme. For further details, see the Practice Notes Business and Property Courts—shorter trials scheme and Business and Property Courts—flexible trials scheme. Electronic working—guidance on electronic working in the TCC is available in Practice Note: TCC—starting a claim—High Court or County Court?—Electronic working and filing of documents. Multi-track—all TCC matters are treated as allocated to the multi-track (CPR 60.6(1)). Accordingly, save where inconsistent with CPR......

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note reflects provisions that were revoked on 1 April 2013 and is retained solely for historical reference purposes only. Limits on the level of fees Caps apply to the recoverable costs awarded for advocates’ fees where a party succeeds, namely in the following specific circumstances: a fast track trial — the cap only operates if, at the trial date, the case remains allocated to the fast track a hearing to determine the quantum of damages following a default judgment (Part 12) or an admission (Part 14) The relevant provisions are set out in CPR 46, which governs these particular limits...

This document offers general guidance on divorce procedure. Your family solicitor can provide advice tailored to your circumstances. Specific advice will depend on your circumstances, and your family solicitor can provide this. No fault divorce The Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020 (DDSA 2020) substantially reshaped divorce law, aiming to lower acrimony by bringing in the commonly called ‘no fault divorce’. The legislation removes the need to attribute fault when initiating proceedings, rather than apportion blame at the outset. It entirely dispenses with attributing blame at the commencement of divorce proceedings. Historically, to obtain a divorce in England and Wales, the applicant had to demonstrate that the marriage had irretrievably broken down, which required proving one of five facts. Three rested on fault—adultery, unreasonable behaviour, and desertion—while two depended on a qualifying period of separation: two years with consent, or five years without consent...

This note offers general guidance on divorce procedure only. Your family lawyer will be able to give specific advice tailored to your circumstances. No fault divorce The Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020 (DDSA 2020) has been widely described as a landmark reform of divorce law, intended to make the process less acrimonious by introducing what is commonly termed ‘no fault divorce’. For the first time, this legislation completely removes the need to attribute blame when commencing divorce proceedings, changing both tone and approach. The revised divorce procedure applies to applications issued from 6 April 2022. Historically, in England and Wales, anyone applying for a divorce had to demonstrate that the marriage had broken down irretrievably, and to do so they were required to prove one of five facts. Three of those facts depended on fault—adultery with a person of the opposite sex, unreasonable behaviour, and desertion—while the other two relied upon a period of separation, namely two years’ separation with consent or five years’ separation without consent...

This document offers broad guidance on the civil partnership dissolution procedure. Your family lawyer can give tailored advice that reflects your particular circumstances. No fault dissolution The Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020 (DDSA 2020) has been described as a landmark overhaul of the law governing divorce and dissolution. Its purpose is to reduce conflict by introducing what is often referred to as a ‘no fault’ route. For the first time, the legislation entirely removed any requirement to attribute blame when starting dissolution proceedings. The new process applies to applications issued on or after 6 April 2022. Previously, to secure the dissolution of a civil partnership in England and Wales, the applicant had to demonstrate that the partnership had irretrievably broken down, which required proof of one of the ‘four facts’. Two of those facts relied on fault—namely unreasonable behaviour and desertion—while the remaining two depended on a period of separation: two years with consent, or five years without consent...