© 2025 by Michael Firth KC, Gray's Inn Tax Chambers
Contact: michael.firth@taxbar.com
Procedure.Tax
For additional search results use Google and enter:
site:procedure.tax [search term]
N12: Transcription and recording
Transcript useful where there is substantial oral evidence
“It would also have been appropriate, given the volume of evidence and the ultimate duration of the hearing, to consider whether a transcript of the hearing might have been necessary. We would have found this to be of considerable advantage.” (SAE Education Ltd v. HMRC [2014] UKFTT 218 (TC), §321, Judge John Clark).
Transcription direction
"[15] If either party requires a transcript, that party shall obtain quotes from at least three of the approved transcription services and will provide these to the other party. That party will arrange for the transcriber whose quote is accepted by both parties to prepare a transcript on each day of the hearing and to provide the transcript to both parties and to the Tribunal (in such manner as the Tribunal may direct) as soon as it becomes available. The parties agree to meet 50% of the transcription costs and each party will then meet its own costs of any additional services that one party uses that the other does not (such as hard copy transcripts)." (HMRC v. Root2 Tax Limited TC08254)
​
Recording the hearing
- Litigant in person refused permission to record video hearing
"[9] First, the Appellant made an oral application for permission to record the hearing in accordance with s.9 (1) (a) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 ("the Recording Application.") The basis of his application was that as a litigant in person he would have difficulty taking notes. He contrasted himself with Mr Scott (the Respondents' representative) who was assisted by Mr Simpson. Specifically, the Appellant wanted to record his own voice. He informed us that if he used his iPad this would pick up his voice, but not the voices of others in the hearing. He also submitted that it would cost him £2,000.00 to obtain a transcript of the hearing. The Respondents adopted a neutral position on this application.
[10] We fully considered the Recording Application. Specifically, we considered the Appellant's position as a litigant in person. We noted that if this reason alone sufficed for the grant of permission then a very large number of litigants in hearings before the Tribunal would be able to make their own recordings. We noted that no reasons related to disability were advanced to support the Recording Application. We considered that the hearing was being recorded [3], via the Tribunal video service, and that the Appellant would be able to request a transcript of the hearing, if necessary. In all the circumstances and having considered Rule 2 of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009 ("the Rules"), we refused the Recording Application. We explained to the Appellant that the hearing would be conducted at a pace (including pauses) that enabled him to take full notes. During the hearing, we checked with the Appellant that the pace was appropriate. He confirmed that it was. Also, we reminded the Appellant that he could request a transcript." (Wardle v. HMRC [2024] UKFTT 543 (TC), Judge Newstead Taylor)
​