Upper Tribunal determines conditions for appointing a non-legal representative in the FTT
In Bridgecom International Limited v HMRC [2025] UKUT 00003 (TCC), the Upper Tribunal held that a costs order made by the FTT had been correctly made. The Appellant taxpayer argued that the notice that the appeal had been allocated as a complex case had been sent to its former representatives who had never been validly appointed as their representatives in the proceedings, and hence the FTT’s power to make a costs order had not arisen.
The Upper Tribunal held that although the Appellant’s representative was a non-legal representative and could not notify the FTT of its appointment itself, it was sufficient to comply with Rule 11(2) of the FTT Rules that the Appellant had caused or authorised written notice of the representative’s name and address to be sent or delivered to the FTT.
A party may validly appoint a non-legal representative by either (1) causing to be sent to the Tribunal a notice of appeal signed by the party itself and which states the name and address of the non-legal representative, or (2) causing a signed form of authority stating the name and address of the representative to be sent to the Tribunal. The party need not send either document themselves, so long as it was sent on the instruction of the party.
The Upper Tribunal also accepted alternative submissions that provision of proof of the non-legal representative’s appointment is sufficient to comply with Rule 11(2), and that in the circumstances of the case any non-compliance with Rule 11(2) would be waived or remedied by Rule 7 because it would be just and fair to do so.
Sam Way represented HMRC in the Upper Tribunal.
Back to News
