Results: 23
-
Cox v Revenue and Customs (PENALTIES - HMRC had refused to exercise its discretion to suspend penalties for careless inaccuracies)
07 Jan 2026 [2026] UKUT 7 (TCC), FTT
In the Upper Tribunal case [2026] UKUT 00007 (TCC), Philip and Debra Cox appealed against HMRC's refusal to suspend penalties for careless inaccuracies in their self-assessment returns. The First-tier Tribunal upheld HMRC's decision, noting the inaccuracies resulted from a one-off event and that no preventive conditions could be established. The Upper Tribunal dismissed the appeal, confirming HMRC's decision was sound, as the proposed conditions did not indicate measurable improvement in taxpayer behaviour. Consequently, the penalties of £16,152.90 and £16,252.35 were upheld. -
Daniel Morris v Information Commissioner
05 Jan 2026 [2025] UKFTT 1209 (GRC), FTT
In the First-tier Tribunal, Daniel Morris's application against the Information Commissioner was struck out for lack of reasonable prospects of success. Morris sought a response to his complaint, but the Commissioner had already issued an outcome. The Tribunal deemed further action futile, as it could not address the merits of the original complaint. Therefore, the application was dismissed under rule 8(3)(c) of the Tribunal Procedure Rules. -
Baverstock Construction Ltd v The Pension Regulator
07 Jan 2026 [2026] UKFTT 19 (GRC), FTT
In Baverstock Construction Ltd v The Pension Regulator, the First-tier Tribunal struck out the appeal due to the Appellant's non-compliance with directions and lack of cooperation. The Appellant failed to provide necessary documents or clarifications despite multiple opportunities. The Tribunal determined that this non-compliance obstructed the fair handling of the proceedings, resulting in the appeal being dismissed under Rule 8(3)(a) and (b) of the Tribunal Procedure Rules. -
David King v The Information Commissioner
06 Jan 2026 [2026] UKFTT 6 (GRC), FTT
The First-tier Tribunal dismissed David King's application against the Information Commissioner under Rule 8(3)(c) for lacking reasonable prospects of success. It determined that it lacked jurisdiction to review the substantive outcome of the Commissioner’s investigation into King's complaint about Royal Mail, finding that the Commissioner had adequately addressed the complaint. The Tribunal concluded it could only consider procedural issues under section 166 of the Data Protection Act 2018, resulting in the application being dismissed without a hearing. -
The Fleece Sports Bar Limited v The Pensions Regulator
07 Jan 2026 [2026] UKFTT 21 (GRC), FTT
1. The Appellant lodged a reference using the GRC1 form on 3 October 2025. The reference was incomplete as the Appellant did not include a copy of the decision notice they sought to challenge and it was not clear from the documents provided that the Appellant has a right of appeal to the Tribunal. 2. By Directions and email dated 6 October 2025 the Appellant was required to provide a completed copy of the Pensions – Right to Appeal form within 28 days. The Appellant did not comply with that Direction. 3. By Directions dated 1 December 2025, the Appellant -
Rheinallt Williams & Anor, R (on the application of) v Natural Resources Wales
06 Jan 2026 [2026] EWHC 9 (Admin), KBD
In the High Court case, the claimants contested Natural Resources Wales' (NRW) decision to stop maintaining the Tan Lan Embankment, claiming it was unlawful and unfairly impacted nearby landowners. The court allowed the challenge on two grounds but ultimately dismissed the claim, determining that NRW's decision was lawful, well-reasoned, and compliant with property rights under the European Convention. The court affirmed that NRW acted within its authority under the Water Resources Act 1991 and that the decision aligned with flood risk management priorities. -
Mahmood Sherali Bhogadia v The Information Commissioner
08 Jan 2026 [2025] UKFTT 1373 (GRC), FTT
In Mahmood Sherali Bhogadia v The Information Commissioner, the First-tier Tribunal upheld the Information Commissioner's decision on a Freedom of Information Act request. The tribunal ordered the Judicial Appointments Committee to disclose the number of Muslim candidates recommended in exercise JAC00006. However, the appeal was largely dismissed, as the tribunal found that disclosing other requested information would breach data protection principles by potentially identifying individuals. The decision was issued on 8 January 2026. -
Stacey Jessica Nurrish v Nursing and Midwifery Council
02 Jan 2026 [2026] EWHC 2 (Admin), KBD
In Nurrish v Nursing and Midwifery Council, the High Court overturned the panel's finding of deliberate dishonesty that resulted in the appellant's removal from the nursing register. The court identified procedural irregularities and a lack of sufficient evidence for the dishonesty claim. As a result, the finding of impairment was also set aside, and the case was remitted for reconsideration by a differently-constituted panel regarding the appellant's fitness to practise and any appropriate sanction. -
Ishtiaq Baig v Zoheb Hassan
05 Jan 2026 [2026] EWHC 11 (KB), KBD
In the High Court case of Ishtiaq Baig v Zoheb Hassan, the appellant's appeal against the dismissal of his defamation claim was rejected. The court upheld the lower judge's determination that the respondent was not domiciled in the UK at the time the claim was issued. The appellant's arguments concerning cross-examination and the "good arguable case" test were dismissed, with the judge's conclusions found to be sound. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the lower court's ruling. -
Yarwood v The Information Commissioner (IC)
06 Jan 2026 [2026] UKFTT 7 (GRC), FTT
The First-tier Tribunal dismissed Yarwood's appeal against the Information Commissioner's decision concerning a Freedom of Information request to the Crown Prosecution Service. The Tribunal determined that the CPS did not possess the requested information and upheld the application of exemptions under the Freedom of Information Act, emphasising the need to protect the integrity of the prosecution process. It concluded that the public interest did not favour disclosure, deeming the appeal without merit. The decision was formally signed on 29 December 2025.