Headless chickens: Morrisons and the FTT’s supervisory jurisdiction
Published on 23rd March 2026
In an article first published in Tax Journal, Jack Prytherch and Yousuf Chughtai consider the nature and scope of the FTT's jurisdiction to handle legitimate expectation arguments
At a glance
In Morrisons, the FTT followed the UT's decision in Zeman to find jurisdiction over legitimate expectation arguments, despite considering that decision to be wrong — adding to ongoing uncertainty for future litigants.
Where taxpayers wish to raise public law arguments alongside a statutory appeal, parallel proceedings in the FTT and Administrative Court continue to impose significant costs, delays and litigation risk.
In the absence of immediate reform, taxpayers should front-load their jurisdictional analysis, consider a dual-proceedings approach where the FTT's jurisdiction is uncertain, and remain alert to strict judicial review time limits and the alternative remedy principle.
In an article first published in Tax Journal (Issue 1746 on 6 March 2026), Jack Prytherch and Yousuf Chughtai analyse recent First-tier Tribunal decisions, including WM Morrison Supermarkets Ltd v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1542 (TC), dealing with the procedural question of whether the FTT has jurisdiction to consider legitimate expectation arguments.
Morrisons
In Morrisons, a case about the VAT treatment of cool-down rotisserie chickens, the FTT held that it did have jurisdiction to entertain legitimate expectation arguments, albeit with reservations about the Upper Tribunal's reasoning in KSM Henryk Zeman Sp. z.o.o v HMRC [2021] UKUT 182 (TCC). The FTT nevertheless dismissed the legitimate expectation case on its merits.
The fact that over 100 paragraphs of the decision were devoted to the jurisdiction question alone starkly illustrates the time, cost and doctrinal complexity involved. Where taxpayers have a statutory right of appeal but also wish to raise public law arguments, they are typically forced to run parallel proceedings in both the FTT and the Administrative Court, adding delay, cost and potential prejudice.
No quick fix
While there are potential reforms, including primary legislation, amendments to the FTT Rules to facilitate automatic transfer of associated appeals to the Upper Tribunal, and the issue of a practice statement by the FTT, none offers an immediate or complete solution.
What should taxpayers do now?
In the meantime, taxpayers wishing to run public law arguments should front-load their jurisdictional analysis should consider a "belt and braces" approach to dual proceedings, and remain alert to strict judicial review time limits.
