Softhouse Consulting Ltd v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2014] All ER (D) 224 (Feb)
There were two factors which were likely to arise in any case in which a respondent was seeking to recover costs of resisting an application. The first was that an applicant had only to show that it was arguable that the FTT had made an error of law which had affected the outcome of the appeal before it. An application for permission was not an occasion for arguing the appeal itself, nor was it an opening for the respondent to seek to stifle an appeal when the applicant was able to show an arguable error of law. The second was that the fact of an oral application necessarily implied that the applicant had already failed twice, on paper applications, to secure permission. A respondent should ordinarily be cautious about incurring costs against that background. In the light of those factors, respondents seeking their costs of resisting an application, whether the Revenue or taxpayers, would bear the burden of demonstrating that intervention (rather than relying on the experience and expertise of the tribunal
