[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Askham v Inland Revenue [2002] EWCA Civ 1322 (17 September 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2002/1322.html Cite as: [2002] EWCA Civ 1322

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CHANCERY DIVISION
(Mr Justice Park)

		The Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2 Tuesday 17 September 2002

Tuesday 17 September 2002

1. LORD JUSTICE CARNWATH: This is an application for permission to appeal against a decision of Park J given in February 2002. The appellant, Mr Askham, was appealing against a bankruptcy order made on 23 July 2001 on a petition of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue.
2. The background was that there had been assessments for income tax and capital gains tax over many years, going back to the early 80s, and the net effect of those assessments was a sum of some £400,000. There had been an appeal before the commissioners, which was heard in February 2000. They reduced the overall assessments, but still left a figure of over £200,000. Mr Askham says that that is way out of proportion, indeed several times more than his annual turnover, and he feels that he was not given a proper hearing.
3. Provision in the Taxes Management Act 1970 for appeal against a decision of the commissioners on matters of law does of course exist, but there is a strict time limit and no appeal was lodged. Mr Askham did subsequently attempt to raise the matter in the county court but it did not have jurisdiction, and eventually the matter resulted in a judgment debt against him in the Chichester County Court for over £380,000. He failed to pay that. There was a statutory demand and a bankruptcy order was made.
4. That was the matter which came before Park J on appeal. He had a letter before him from Mr Askham, explaining that he was ill. It was supported by a doctor's certificate. The judge went on to deal with the matter in Mr Askham's absence. It is clear from his judgment that the reason he did that was not because he necessarily doubted that Mr Askham was not able to be there, but because he saw no arguable basis for the appeal. It is not unusual for the court to proceed in that way where on the material before it it sees no basis for the case being made. He said that under the Taxes Management Act the commissioner's decision was final, subject to the statutory rights of appeal, and there was no jurisdiction for the court to reopen that matter in the bankruptcy proceedings.
5. In this court Mr Askham faces yet a further hurdle because he is seeking to make a second appeal to this court. He has had one appeal to Park J and in this court a second appeal is not permitted unless there is a matter of general public importance or some other special reason for allowing the matter to be heard. I am quite satisfied that there is no general point of public importance here.
6. Mr Askham does have a point which he would like to raise somewhere. This is that, when the commissioners made their decision and notified him of it back in February 2000, they did not comply with rule 16(5) of the General Commissioners Jurisdiction and Procedure Regulations 1994. It requires a notice to be accompanied by notification of the provisions of the relevant Acts and rules relating to appeals and the time within with they should be made. He says that that was a failure to observe his basic rights and resulted in him not taking the appropriate action at the right time.
7. He did take that up with the commissioners at some point. I have a letter of 12 September 2001 from the solicitors to the commissioners, giving notice of the commissioners' refusal to allow an adjournment of the appeal against the penalties which had been imposed. The chairman is recorded in that letter as referring to there being "some doubt as to whether notice of this was given to Mr Askham in February 2000". What he seems there to be referring to is the possibility of review of the decision by the commissioners, rather than the appeal, but this letter seems to suggest some doubt as to whether the proper notices were given. But the commissioners go on to say that it is clear that copies of the document in question were sent by November 2000. (It is not entirely clear to me what was the document which was sent to him in November 2000. The document to which Mr Askham referred me does not seem to meet the case.)
8. What Mr Askham can say is that in September 2001 the commissioners were acknowledging at least some doubt as to whether some of the necessary documents were sent to him, but I know not what their position would be in relation to the documents required by regulation 16(5). However, if it be right that the relevant notice was not sent to him under regulation 16(5), and that he was not therefore told of the requirements of the Management Act as to the form of notice, then it may be that he would have had a case for an extended time in which to make his appeal. I say no more than that because I have not looked in detail at the effect of those regulations. What is quite clear to me is that this court on this particular appeal cannot reopen that question. It is also absolutely clear to me that Mr Askham needs some proper advice if he wants to take that point at all. One would first have to look at what he was actually sent and find out when he was first notified in order to decide what, if any, action he can now take. But it is not the job of the Court of Appeal to give that advice in proceedings which raise a different matter, namely the appeal against the bankruptcy. So I do urge Mr Askham to either take legal advice, if he is able to do that, or to visit the Citizens Advice Bureau in this court, who are well experienced in providing assistance to litigants in his position.
9. But as far as this appeal is concerned, I am afraid I simply have to refuse permission to appeal.
ORDER: Application refused