High Court quashes Magistrates’ refusal to vary Account Freezing Order in HMRC case
The High Court has quashed a Magistrates’ Court decision refusing to vary an Account Freezing Order obtained by HM Revenue and Customs, finding that the reasons given for the refusal were plainly inadequate.
The judicial review was led by Spencer West Partner Lisa McKinnon-Lower, with Nathan Rasiah KC of 23 Essex Street Chambers acting for the claimant. The ruling reinforces the requirement for courts to give clear and reasoned decisions showing application of the correct legal tests.
The case concerned an application to vary an Account Freezing Order to allow an exclusion for reasonable living expenses. The Magistrates’ Court had refused the application giving no written reasons at all.
The High Court gave the claim urgent consideration and expedited the proceedings in light of the claimant’s circumstances. HMRC contested the claim. Following the hearing, the Court held that the reasons relied upon by the Magistrates were plainly inadequate. The Court found that the defect went to the heart of the justification for the decision and undermined its validity. The decision was quashed.
Account Freezing Orders play a significant role in HMRC investigations and can have immediate and serious consequences for individuals and businesses.
Spencer West Partner Lisa McKinnon-Lower says this judgment highlights the importance of careful judicial scrutiny when such orders restrict access to funds needed for day to day living, and confirms that decision makers must properly explain why applications to vary orders are refused.
“This decision is a clear reminder that courts must engage properly with the real world impact of account freezing orders. Where access to funds for basic living costs is at stake, reasons matter and they must withstand scrutiny,” McKinnon-Lower said.
“The High Court recognised the urgency of the situation and acted quickly. The judgment sends an important message about fairness and accountability in financial investigations, particularly where individuals face serious personal consequences.”
Nathan Rasiah KC of 23 Essex Street Chambers represented the claimant in the judicial review and was instructed by Lisa McKinnon-Lower of Spencer West.
